Acceptability of the Criminal Liability for Criminal Attempt with Dolus Eventualis

Bekir Boga

Makale detayları

Acceptability of the Criminal Liability for Criminal Attempt with Dolus Eventualis

Yazarlar:

Bekir Boga

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Mahkemeler ve Cezanın Belirlenmesi

Dergi:

Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi Vol.12 Issue 2, pp.93-111

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001340119

pISSN:

2148-6646

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Criminal liability for attempt to commit is an institution that provides punishment to the perpetrators of an unfinished crime despite what has begun to be committed; thus, it expands the range of criminal liability. The punishment because due to an attempt is possible if only the perpetrator acts with the intention of performing any offense. Article 35 of the Turkish Penal Code TPC clearly explains the situation. Although Article 35 of the TPC does not determine that the intention must be the direct intention, the Turkish supreme court Yargıtay, and criminal law doctrine accept that there is no criminal liability for attempt with conditioanal intent. For this reason, the rule that conditional intent is determined according to the result of the offence is mostly valid in Turkish criminal law. Thus, the existence of a conditional intent is conditioned on realizing the result in a practical but not theoretical sense. The background of this opinion is the concern that the range of criminal liability could be expanded intolerably. However, a different opinion in Turkish criminal law doctrine states that there is no difference between direct intent and conditional intent regarding the punishment of a criminal attempt. For this reason, according to the opinion, criminal liability is possible due to a criminal attempt with conditional intent. The conditional intent is determined independently from the result of crime according to German doctrine. In this work, if we accept the criminal liability for attempt with conditional intent, whether the concern to expand the range of criminal liability for attempt with conditional intent is true is examined by considering practices and theories of German Law.

 Criminal liability for attempt to commit is an institution that provides punishment to the perpetrators of an unfinished crime despite what has begun to be committed; thus, it expands the range of criminal liability. The punishment because due to an attempt is possible if only the perpetrator acts with the intention of performing any offense. Article 35 of the Turkish Penal Code TPC clearly explains the situation. Although Article 35 of the TPC does not determine that the intention must be the direct intention, the Turkish supreme court Yargıtay, and criminal law doctrine accept that there is no criminal liability for attempt with conditioanal intent. For this reason, the rule that conditional intent is determined according to the result of the offence is mostly valid in Turkish criminal law. Thus, the existence of a conditional intent is conditioned on realizing the result in a practical but not theoretical sense. The background of this opinion is the concern that the range of criminal liability could be expanded intolerably. However, a different opinion in Turkish criminal law doctrine states that there is no difference between direct intent and conditional intent regarding the punishment of a criminal attempt. For this reason, according to the opinion, criminal liability is possible due to a criminal attempt with conditional intent. The conditional intent is determined independently from the result of crime according to German doctrine. In this work, if we accept the criminal liability for attempt with conditional intent, whether the concern to expand the range of criminal liability for attempt with conditional intent is true is examined by considering practices and theories of German Law.

 Criminal liability for attempt to commit is an institution that provides punishment to the perpetrators of an unfinished crime despite what has begun to be committed; thus, it expands the range of criminal liability. The punishment because due to an attempt is possible if only the perpetrator acts with the intention of performing any offense. Article 35 of the Turkish Penal Code TPC clearly explains the situation. Although Article 35 of the TPC does not determine that the intention must be the direct intention, the Turkish supreme court Yargıtay, and criminal law doctrine accept that there is no criminal liability for attempt with conditioanal intent. For this reason, the rule that conditional intent is determined according to the result of the offence is mostly valid in Turkish criminal law. Thus, the existence of a conditional intent is conditioned on realizing the result in a practical but not theoretical sense. The background of this opinion is the concern that the range of criminal liability could be expanded intolerably. However, a different opinion in Turkish criminal law doctrine states that there is no difference between direct intent and conditional intent regarding the punishment of a criminal attempt. For this reason, according to the opinion, criminal liability is possible due to a criminal attempt with conditional intent. The conditional intent is determined independently from the result of crime according to German doctrine. In this work, if we accept the criminal liability for attempt with conditional intent, whether the concern to expand the range of criminal liability for attempt with conditional intent is true is examined by considering practices and theories of German Law.

 Teşebbüs, bir suçun icra hareketlerine başlanmasına rağmen suçun tamamlanamadığı hallerde cezalandırmayı sağlayan ve bu suretle ceza sorumluluğu alanını genişleten bir müessesedir. Teşebbüs nedeniyle ceza sorumluluğu ancak failin tipik eylem bakımından kasten hareket ettiği durumlarda gündeme gelebilir. Türk Ceza Kanunun 35. maddesinde bu durum açıkça belirtilmektedir. Her ne kadar 35. maddede bir belirleme söz konusu değilse de Türk Hukukunda, öğretide ve Yargıtay kararlarında olası kastla hareket edilen hallerde suç teşebbüsten ötürü ceza sorumluluğu tesis edilemeyeceği kabul edilmektedir. Bu nedenle Türk Ceza Hukukunda genellikle olası kast netice ile belirlenir kuralı kabul edilmektedir. Böylelikle olası kastın varlığı teorik anlamda olmasa da pratik anlamda neticenin gerçekleşmesi şartına bağlanmaktadır. Bu görüşün dayandığı neden olası kastla suça teşebbüsün kabul edilmesi halinde ceza sorumluluğu alanının katlanılmaz bir şekilde genişlemesi endişesidir. Buna karşılık öğretide diğer bir görüş teşebbüs bakımından olası kast ile doğrudan kast arasında bir fark bulunmadığını bu nedenle olası kastla suça teşebbüsün mümkün olduğunu kabul etmektedir. Alman Ceza Hukuku öğretisinde ise olası kastla suça teşebbüsün mümkün olduğuna ilişkin görüş birliğinin olduğu söylenebilir. Alman öğretisinde olası kastın varlığı neticenin gerçekleşmesinden bağımsız olarak tespit edilmektedir. Bu çalışmada Alman Hukukundaki görüşler ve uygulama dikkate alınarak olası kastla suça teşebbüsün kabul edilmesi durumunda cezalandırmaya karşı olan yazarların endişelerinin haklı olup olmadığı incelenmektedir.

Makale detayları

Acceptability of the Criminal Liability for Criminal Attempt with Dolus Eventualis

Yazarlar:

Bekir Boga

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Mahkemeler ve Cezanın Belirlenmesi

Dergi:

Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi Vol.12 Issue 2, pp.93-111

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001340119

pISSN:

2148-6646

Conditional intent (eventual intent)

Criminal attempt

Voluntary abandonment

Alternative intent

Risk theories

Decision theoriesOlası kast

Suça teşebbüs

Gönüllü vazgeçme

Alternatif kast

Risk teorileri

Karar teorileri

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Bekir Boga

Yayıncı: Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar: Mahkemeler ve Cezanın Belirlenmesi

Dergi: Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi Vol.12 Issue 2, pp.93-111

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 12/2024

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001340119

pISSN: 2148-6646

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Bekir Boga

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Mahkemeler ve Cezanın Belirlenmesi

Dergi:

Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi Vol.12 Issue 2, pp.93-111

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001340119

pISSN:

2148-6646