THE FALLACY OF UNJUSTIFICATION IN CRIMINAL LAW

The Fallacy of Injustice: A Legal Review

Entrance

In legal systems, a mistaken belief in wrongdoing refers to a situation where the perpetrator is unaware of the illegality of their act or mistakenly assesses it to be illegal. In Turkish Criminal Law, this concept is considered a significant factor affecting criminal responsibility. A mistaken belief in wrongdoing can directly influence the perpetrator's intent and, consequently, the formation of the crime.

Definition of the Fallacy of Injustice

A mistaken belief is when the perpetrator is either completely unaware of the illegality of their act or, as a result of an incorrect legal assessment, believes the act to be lawful. Article 30 of the Turkish Penal Code regulates this mistaken belief and specifies the conditions under which it can eliminate or mitigate criminal liability.

Types of Unfairness Fallacy

The fallacy of injustice is examined under two main headings:

1. Mistake of Direct Intent (Mistake Where Direct Intent is Absent): The perpetrator believes that the act they committed is not unlawful. For example, if a person uses their neighbor's land believing it to be their own because they mistakenly think the boundary between their properties is incorrect, this may be a case of mistake of wrong.
2. The Fallacy of Indirect Wrongfulness (Fallacy of Absence of Indirect Intent): The perpetrator knows that their action is unlawful but believes it is permissible under the law. For example, a perpetrator who disproportionately incapacitates an attacker may not be aware that they have exceeded the limits of self-defense, and this constitutes an example of the fallacy of indirect wrongfulness.

The Effect of the Misconception of Wrongfulness on Criminal Liability

Article 30 of the Turkish Penal Code regulates the effect of a mistaken error on criminal liability. The first paragraph of the article assesses whether a mistake negates intent. If the perpetrator lacks intent due to the mistake, criminal liability is eliminated. However, if this mistake is not negligent, the perpetrator may be held liable for a negligent crime.

Case Studies

• Illusion of Direct Wrongfulness: If someone cuts wood from a forest without permission and believes it is not illegal, this is an example of an illusion of direct wrongfulness. If this illusion is based on a reasonable justification, criminal liability may be eliminated.
• Indirect Wrongfulness Fallacy: A perpetrator might kill an attacker, believing it to be self-defense, but failing to recognize the disproportionate nature of the attack. In this case, an indirect wrongfulness fallacy may exist, affecting the perpetrator's criminal liability.

Conclusion

A mistaken belief arises when the perpetrator, due to a legal error, mistakenly believes their actions are lawful. In Turkish Criminal Law, this mistake can affect the existence of intent and therefore may eliminate or mitigate the perpetrator's criminal liability. However, in each case, it is necessary to carefully assess whether the mistake was reasonable and whether the perpetrator can be held liable for it.