Introduction
The legal theory that gets resources of modern philosophy of law is referred to as analytical jurisprudence. This type of theory is also known as clarificatory jurisprudence which contains neutral opinions as well as explanatory language as far as features of systems of law are concerned. Analytical jurisprudence seeks to classify, explain and analyze the bodies of law which includes constitutional, and Tort as well as contract laws. This kind of jurisprudence seeks to explain the concerning law and its relationship with power and sociology as well as the relationship between morality and law.
Legal Formalism
Legal formalism can also be referred to as conceptualism which is known to treat law like science or mathematics which have formulas to follow. Just the same way a scientists or a mathematician apply formulas to particular data formalist also think that judges should also look for the appropriate ethics and apply them to essentials of the case. According to the formalists, the judges should reasonably adapt to a judgment that controls the dispute outcome rather than base the rule in real life situation. Formalists believe that most judges get their legal morals from sources of officially permitted authority. However, these authorities include statutes, regulation, and state among others. They support reasoning that is inductive in settling lawful arguments. The inductive reasoning follows a broader lawful ethics that can be used in settling future disputes.
Advantages of Legal Formalism
Legal formalists laws can be applied in future disputes since it follows laid down principles. The judgments from formalism can not be applied by any other person apart from lawyers and judges who are the only people who extensively understand this artificial reasoning obtained through surveillance, familiarity as well as long studies. By applying this law, unjust judgments which have no basis are usually eradicated thereby leading to proper justice that follows laid down principles. The law is easier to apply since it is inductive. The general public is also prevented by this law from taking unjust decisions since this law requires sufficiently learned people. This law also allows judges to pass equal judgments to all people presenting disputes. This is because this law provides a correct answer in all cases.
Legal Realism
Realist argues that the existence of the law has not been reasoning but it has been through understanding. They strongly believed that law does not necessarily follow stimulated reasoning. Realist stressed that law is not scientific and does not come under any formula. They instead argue that judges should put into consideration the interests of the parties involved in a case and on the other hand balance them thereby drawing a subjective line favoring one side of the case. The arbitrary line is generally drawn in correspondence with the economic, Political and psychological values of the judge who is handling the case.
Advantages of Legal Realism
Legal realism permits the use of ordinary logic to be applied by the judges while settling disputes. Realism also has the capacity to solve conflicts between two moral issues. It allows everyone involved to seek the right answer to resolve disputes of two conflicting morals since they cannot be both right.
Conclusion
Legal formalism is more superior to realism because it has quite a number of advantages over legal realism. Legal formalism allows for equal and appropriate judgments to parties with disputes while legal realism seems to apply malice. On the other hand, realism safeguards the economic status in order to maximize wealth as well as protect interests of individuals and judges. It is worth noting that, legal formalism is superior reduces chances of judicial oppression, it can be applied in future cases as well as it protects the general public from misguided judgments
