By Boy Yendra Tamin, SH. MH
Faculty of Law, University of Bung HattaIs it the law of science? Not easy to answer this question. It is possible the perspective of the law until now there is no common ground among legal experts, whether called by the the law.
However, challenges are not meant to understand the the law as a science or not science difficult thing. Because the problem is not the point about the the law definition of, although it can not be separated at all. In regard to the question at the beginning of this article, we began an investigation of definition of of what is referred to the science of it.
Science is associative thinking that understand the essential and universal causality as a result and the accumulated knowledge by using a systematic procedure and certain methods. Science is a systematic knowledge; or that science is a system.
According to Bernard Arief Sidhartha, science contains two meanings, namely science as a product and science as a process. As a product, knowledge is knowledge that has been verified. Meanwhile, as a process, science refers to the activity of the human mind would be to acquire knowledge in a particular field systematically by using a set of sense specifically created for it, to observe and assess the symptoms that are relevant to the field, which results in decisions that validity is open to study other people on the same criteria and agreed upon or are prevalent in the community environment expertise in the relevant field.
So, in order to be referred to science it must be fulfilled requirements of the objects and their methods. If so, does the law already have two basic requirements to be called a science? Before we give an answer to this question, the following will put forward some opinions that rejected the law can be said to be a science. According to Von Stammer and H.Kelsen, that the law is a mere necessity sollen and not science. And everything is sollen not science.
According to Gabriel Marcely, the the law is a mystery (dark) for speaking the law is always limited in space and time. Thus the law is not a science. Meanwhile, according to Von Kircman; the science of law that it is not a science, because the object of the science the law is positive law. Where in the positive law a priori we are forced to obey, while in science people have the freedom to learn.
Of the three views that reject the law as a science it can be argued, that this view does not start from the root. That is, the law is only seen as something abstract or the law only seen in the narrow sense (positive law). In fact, the law should be seen as like anything else in the empirical world. It is important to get clarity, from a sociological viewpoint for example, the law consists of actions that can be observed, not only actions that can be observed, not only consists of rules as the concept of rules or norms that are used both in the literature and jurisprudence the law in everyday language.
That the object of the science of law is the law. Then back again kepertanyaan, whether it's the law? It is recognized, that because of the wide scope of the law until the present time there is no legal definition of an absolutely perfect and precise than ever raised a number of definitions of the law experts. Nevertheless, one of a number of existing definitions as presented Satjipto Rahardjo can help us to explain whether it is the law or not science. According Satjipto, the law is a social technology. If the the law is a social technology, then this is the root of understanding human behavior and the man himself in his association.
And human behavior and interaction of human life was actually the beginning of the object the science of law and how to construct an association rules for human life through the regulations that will govern the behavior and interaction to realize what the ideals of the law the order in the broadest sense. To prepare a good legal framework and in accordance with the ideals the law that we need a method. And in fact in the development of the science of law methodology developed the law in such a way as it looks now.
Understanding and perception we will be stronger, when we pointed out what was stated by Prof. Mochtar Kusumaatmadja, that the law can be used as a means of community renewal. This opinion is clearly no longer sees the law merely as a means of regulating behavior, to create order in the strict sense, but more than that. Rescoe Pound states, the law can be used to provide and develop the basics pemikiranya with preparing materials existing law becomes the law in accordance with the development of society.
From the above view is clear, that the definition of and our view of the law is no longer solely focused on the positive law or jurisprudence or to the statement of the the law consists only of words, but it is as a means. as a means, the law must be arranged through a method and its object is not only positive law but of human behavior and social change can be observed like in the empirical world. If so, whether the the law can be referred to as a science? (***)