CRIMES OF INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE, AND NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE

Entrance

Human life has been considered the highest value in religious, moral, and legal systems. Like modern legal systems, Turkish law also guarantees the right to life in Article 17 of the Constitution, viewing it as "inviolable, inalienable, and indispensable." In criminal law, intentional homicide , attempted homicide , and negligent homicide , which constitute some of the most serious crimes violating the right to life, are fundamental types of crimes that directly affect both social peace and individual security. These crimes require extensive examination not only from a criminal law perspective but also from the perspectives of sociology, theology, criminology, and the secular constitutional order. This is because the act of killing is a multifaceted phenomenon that simultaneously concerns human existence, the order of society, the security mechanisms of the state, and the sacred value that religion places on the right to life.

This article Articles 81, 82, 83, and 85 of the Turkish Penal Code, the provisions of the Constitution guaranteeing the right to life, the decisions of the Supreme Court's Criminal General Assembly and the Unification of Jurisprudence, sociological and theological perspectives, and numerous concrete examples.

1. Constitutional Framework: The Absolute Nature of the Right to Life

Article 17 of the Constitution states that everyonehas the "right to life." This provision encompasses both the negative obligations of the state (not killing, not applying the death penalty) and its positive obligations (protecting life, taking necessary measures, conducting effective investigations).

The decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court frequently emphasize the state's obligation to conduct "effective investigations" in cases of violations of the right to life. For example, the Constitutional Court's decision in the case of Ali Kemal and Othersacknowledges that the right to life is violated if law enforcement fails to conduct effective investigations into deaths resulting from torture.

This constitutional framework serves as the fundamental reference in interpreting the crimes of homicide in the Turkish Penal Code.

---

2. Intentional Homicide (Turkish Penal Code Articles 81-82)

The crime of intentional homicide is regulated in the Turkish Penal Code as basic and aggravated circumstances.

2.1. Basic Form (Turkish Penal Code Article 81)

Intentional homicide is when the perpetrator knowingly and willingly commits the act of killing. In this crime, intent can be direct or indirect.

The Supreme Court adopts the following criterion in distinguishing between probable intent and conscious negligence:

📌 “If the perpetrator foresees and accepts the outcome, there is probable intent; if they foresee it but are confident that it will not occur, there is conscious negligence.”
(Supreme Court Criminal General Assembly, 2017/120 E., 2019/47 K.)

A concrete example:
If a person stabs another person with a knife during an argument, that is direct intent. However, a person who kills a pedestrian by speeding and running a red light could be considered to have acted with indirect intent.

---

2.2. Aggravating Circumstances (Turkish Penal Code Article 82)

Some of the aggravating circumstances listed in Article 82 of the Turkish Penal Code are:

• By designing

• With monstrous feelings

• Against spouse or descendant

• Against a public official

• In order to conceal a crime

• Dangerous methods such as fire, suffocation, and poisoning

According to the Supreme Court premeditationmeans that the perpetrator thinks about it beforehand, makes a plan, and perseveres in that decision.

An example of an aggravated form of murder:
A person stalking their ex-spouse for a long period of time and planning to kill them on a specific day.

---

2.3. Important Principles in the Context of the Supreme Court's Jurisprudence Unification Decision

One of the most important Supreme Court rulings unifying jurisprudence regarding homicide offenses, IKB 1/1976, provides extensive guidance to judges on "determining intent to kill."
According to the ruling:

📌 "The perpetrator's intent, the means used, the body part targeted, the number of blows, and the sequence of events should all be considered together to determine the outcome."

Furthermore the Supreme Court of Appeals' decision 2017/120 clearly established the criteria for distinguishing between possible intent and conscious negligence.

---

3. Attempted Murder

Attempted murder occurs when the perpetrator acts with the intent to kill, but despite taking appropriate actions, the desired outcome is not achieved.

For example:

• The perpetrator stabbed a person multiple times, but the injured person survived in the hospital

• The bullet missed its target despite the gun aiming

• Despite being poisoned, the lethal dose was not achieved

According to the Supreme Court Criminal General Assembly:

📌 "For an attempt to exist, the perpetrator must have the intent to kill, and the actions must be capable of causing death."

---

4. Manslaughter by Negligence (Turkish Penal Code Article 85)

Manslaughter by negligence is when a person's death is caused by their failure to fulfill their duty of care and diligence

Elements of negligence:

• Predictability

• Violation of the duty of care and diligence

• Undesirable outcome

Examples:

• Hitting a pedestrian while driving without a license

• Failure to take safety precautions in construction

• Death resulting from a doctor sending a patient away without conducting the necessary tests

• Accidental firing of the rifle while cleaning it

The Supreme Court's jurisprudence consistently emphasizes that in negligent offenses, the perpetrator will be punished unless they exercised foreseeable diligence

---

5. Sociological Perspective: Violence, Culture, and the Individual

When analyzing the sociological causes of homicide in Türkiye:

• Feudal traditions

• Domestic violence

• Vendetta

• Economic crisis and unemployment

• Substance addiction

• Urban stress

• Proliferation of weapons

• Lack of emotional control

• Mechanisms of societal madness

Factors such as these appear to play an important role.

For example, in many cases brought before the Supreme Court, "honor killing" are seen to be influential. Such phenomena are in no way justifiable in a modern legal system and are punishable by aggravation.

The fact that the Supreme Court keeps the application of the "unjust provocation" clause very limited in such cases is also important from a sociological perspective.

---

6. Theological Perspective: The Right to Life and Homicide in Religions

From a theological perspective, all divine religions, especially Islam, consider human life sacred.

The right to life in the Quran

"Surah Al-Maidah, verse 32" clearly states:

📌 "Whoever kills a person without having committed murder or spread corruption in the land, it is as if he has killed all of mankind."

This verse emphasizes that the act of killing is an absolute prohibition under divine law.

Christianity

In the Bible's "Ten Commandments":
📌 "You shall not kill."

Judaism

In the Torah, murder is considered one of the gravest sins

Therefore, from a theological perspective, the act of killing is explicitly, unequivocally, and undeniably forbidden.

---

7. Secular Legal Perspective: The State's Monopoly on Punishment

The state in Turkey is secular; therefore, criminal law legal and social grounds, not religious ones .

As a requirement of secularism:

• The basis of criminal law is not religion, but social order and public security.

• The state has a "monopoly on punishment".

• Individuals are forbidden from taking justice into their own hands.

Therefore, penalties for murders committed out of malice, feudal motives, or customary law are quite severe; because the secular legal system absolutely prohibits "individual revenge.".

---

8. Distinguishing Between Intent, Negligence, and Attempt in Light of Specific Cases

Concrete example 1:
The perpetrator enters the house and stabs his wife to death. → Homicide with direct intent.

Concrete example 2:
While cleaning his gun, he accidentally fires and kills his friend. → Manslaughter

Concrete example 3:
The perpetrator fires a gun with the intention of killing the person they are arguing with; the bullet misses. → Attempted murder

Concrete example 4:
The perpetrator drives under the influence of excessive alcohol and hits a pedestrian at high speed. → Manslaughter by conscious negligence.

Concrete example 5:
The perpetrator points the gun at the chest and fires, "solely to scare". → Homicide with possible intent.

The Supreme Court has developed a very extensive body of case law regarding such distinctions.

---

9. Fundamental Principles Based on Supreme Court Case Law

9.1. Vehicle – target – number of impacts criterion

CGK 2015/312:
📌 Stabbing in the chest → intent to kill

9.2. Focusing on vital areas of the body

In attacks targeting areas such as the head, neck, and heart, the presumption of intent is strong.

9.3. Distinction between probable intent and conscious negligence

CGK 2017/120:

📌 "A perpetrator who acts knowing and accepting the consequences is liable with probable intent."

---

10. Social Peace and the Role of the State

The Supreme Court's broad application of aggravated life sentences has caused a stir in society:

• Increasing deterrence,

• Breaking down the culture of individual revenge,

• Weakening feudal ties,

• Preventing femicides

It serves its purpose.

The reduction in sentences for homicides against women, especially in recent years, is a result of public pressure and sociological transformation.

---

Conclusion

Intentional homicide, attempted homicide, and negligent homicide are among the most severely punished crimes in the Turkish legal system. As this article demonstrates, these crimes are multifaceted, not only from a criminal law perspective but also in terms of constitutional principles, religious values, the concept of a secular state, and sociological phenomena shaped by the social structure. The precedents and unification of jurisprudence decisions of the Supreme Court of Appeals provide important guidance, particularly in determining intent, distinguishing between possible intent and conscious negligence, and evaluating aggravating circumstances.

The sanctity of the right to life forms the basis not only of being human but also of a democratic state governed by the rule of law. Therefore, criminal law, with its protective, deterrent, and rehabilitative aspects, serves as a safeguard for social order. The Turkish criminal law system, in line with the provisions of the Constitution concerning the right to life, the established rulings of the Supreme Court, and the changing sociological dynamics of society, adopts a fair, balanced, and socially conciliatory approach to these crimes.