REASONS THAT ELIMINATE OR REDUCE CRIMINAL LIABILITY
REASONS THAT ELIMINATE OR REDUCE CRIMINAL LIABILITY
1. INTRODUCTION
In criminal law, the fact that an act committed by a person is defined as a crime in the law does not necessarily mean that the person will be punished. For criminal liability to arise, it is not sufficient for the act to conform to the legal type; the act must also be unlawful, and the perpetrator must be considered culpable for the act. Therefore, in criminal theory, typicality, unlawfulness, and culpability are fundamental elements that must be evaluated separately.
Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, in this context, sometimes deems the act committed by the perpetrator lawful, while in other cases, even if the act remains unlawful, it completely eliminates or reduces the perpetrator's culpability. These institutions are regulated in Articles 24 to 34 of the second section of the law, titled "Reasons Eliminating or Reducing Criminal Responsibility." In the current system of the Turkish Penal Code, this section includes provisions on: the provision of law and the order of a superior, self-defense and necessity, the exercise of a right and the consent of the person concerned, exceeding limits, coercion and threat, unjust provocation, error, minority, mental illness, deafness and muteness, temporary reasons, and being under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
However, it is not possible to say that all these institutions have the same legal nature. For example, self-defense, the exercise of a right, and the consent of the person concerned are essentially grounds for legality . In contrast, institutions such as minority, mental illness, coercion, or severe threat are essentially factors affecting culpability. In cases of unjust provocation, the perpetrator's culpability is not completely eliminated; a reduction in punishment is made due to the decrease in the degree of culpability.
This distinction is extremely important. Because while an act justified by law is considered lawful by the entire legal system, in cases where grounds negate culpability, the act remains unlawful; only the perpetrator's personal culpability for that act is eliminated.
2. THE BASIS OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY: THE PRINCIPLE OF FAULT
One of the fundamental principles of modern criminal law "no punishment without fault ." For a person to be punished, their conduct must be legally reprehensible.
In the criminal theory adopted by the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, the perpetrator is responsible for the punishment of the individual;
- being able to understand the legal meaning and consequences of the act,
- being able to direct their behavior in accordance with the requirements of the legal order,
- it can be expected that he will act in accordance with the law
It is important.
Therefore, criminal liability is also affected by certain exceptional circumstances that eliminate or severely reduce the perpetrator's freedom of action.
For example, the free will of a person forced to commit a crime at gunpoint is not the same as the free will of a person who commits a crime entirely of their own free will. Similarly, the culpability of a person who, due to a severe mental illness, cannot comprehend the meaning of their actions cannot be evaluated in the same way as that of a healthy person.
This idea also underlies the reasons that eliminate or reduce criminal liability.
3. FULFILLMENT OF THE PROVISION OF THE LAW
According to Article 24/1 of the Turkish Penal Code:
"No punishment shall be given to a person who fulfills the provisions of the law."
Here, the action performed by the individual becomes lawful due to the authority granted or the duty imposed by law, even though it might constitute a type of crime under other circumstances. Article 24 of the Turkish Penal Code also regulates the responsibility regime regarding the execution of orders given by a competent authority and which are mandatory to be carried out as part of one's duty. It is explicitly stated that an order that constitutes a crime cannot, as a rule, be carried out.
For example, when a law enforcement officer escorts a convict to a correctional facility in accordance with a final court decision, restricting the person's freedom of movement may technically appear as deprivation of liberty, it is lawful because it is the fulfillment of a duty assigned by law.
Similarly, a law enforcement officer entering a residence or tampering with belongings while executing a duly executed search warrant does not constitute a crime when carried out within the legal framework.
However, exceeding the limits of the authority granted by law can render the act lawful. Therefore, "enforcing the law" cannot be interpreted as an unlimited power.
4. OBEYING THE SUPERIOR'S ORDERS
According to Article 24/2 of the Turkish Penal Code, a person who executes an order given by a competent authority and which is mandatory to carry out as part of their duty is not held liable under certain conditions.
To do this, first of all;
- The authority giving the order must be competent
- the order must be related to the area of responsibility
- the execution of the order is mandatory as a matter of duty
is necessary.
However, Article 24/3 of the Turkish Penal Code imposes a very important limitation:
An order that constitutes a crime cannot be carried out under any circumstances.
Therefore, a public official's defense of "the superior ordered it" does not always absolve them of criminal responsibility.
If an order that clearly constitutes a crime is carried out, as a rule, both the person giving the order and the person carrying it out may be held criminally liable. Only in special circumstances where the law prevents the legality of the order from being reviewed may the person giving the order be held liable.
5. LEGITIMATE SELF-DEFENSE
In criminal law, one of the most important grounds for justification is self-defense.
According to Article 25/1 of the Turkish Penal Code, no punishment shall be imposed on a person for acts committed in proportion to an unlawful attack against his own right or the right of another person, which is certain to occur or recur, and which are carried out out of necessity to repel the attack.
Self-defense is not only applicable to attacks on the right to life. The law explicitly "a right ." Therefore, depending on the specifics of the case, attacks on rights such as bodily integrity, sexual integrity, property, or domicile may also be subject to self-defense.
5.1. There Must Be an Unlawful Attack
The first condition for legitimate self-defense is the existence of an attack.
The attack must be unlawful. It is not possible to invoke self-defense against a lawfully conducted act.
For example, resisting a law enforcement officer who is lawfully making an arrest does not, as a rule, constitute self-defense.
5.2. The Attack Must Be Up-to-Date
Self-defense is not a means of taking revenge for an attack that ended in the past.
The attack;
- the fact that it has started,
- the beginning must be found or
- the certainty of its repetition
is necessary.
If, after the attack has ended, the perpetrator harms the attacker, it is no longer considered self-defense, but rather, if certain conditions are met, it can be considered unjust provocation.
This distinction is extremely important in practice, especially in cases involving fighting, assault, and homicide.
5.3. Defense Must Be Mandatory
The action taken must be aimed at neutralizing the attack.
Taking revenge on an aggressor under the guise of self-defense cannot be considered legitimate self-defense.
The circumstances at the time of the incident must be taken into account. The perpetrator cannot be expected to make an extremely detailed and dispassionate legal assessment within seconds of the incident.
5.4. There Must Be a Balance Between Defense and Offense
Proportionality is one of the important conditions for legitimate self-defense.
However, proportionality does not simply mean comparing the means used.
For example, it cannot be mechanically assessed that if an attacker uses a knife, the defender must necessarily retaliate with a knife. The intensity of the attack, the physical characteristics of the individuals, the environment in which the incident occurred, the number of attackers, whether the attack continued, and whether self-defense was possible in other ways must all be considered together.
6. EXCEEDING THE LIMITS OF LEGITIMATE SELF-DEFENSE
Article 27 of the Turkish Penal Code also regulates the situation where the limits of legitimate self-defense or other grounds for removing criminal liability are exceeded.
According to Article 27/1 of the Turkish Penal Code, if the limit is exceeded unintentionally and the negligent form of the act is also defined as a crime in the law, a reduction is applied to the penalty prescribed for the negligent crime.
However, there is a much more specific provision regarding self-defense.
According to Article 27/2 of the Turkish Penal Code:
"If exceeding the limits of legitimate self-defense stems from justifiable excitement, fear, or panic, the perpetrator shall not be punished."
This arrangement is based on the psychological state of the person who has been attacked.
For example, a person who encounters an intruder entering their home at night may resort to a more forceful defense than is objectively necessary to fend off the attack. If the excessive use of force stemmed from justifiable fear, excitement, or panic caused by the attack, criminal liability may be waived.
However, pursuing and punishing the perpetrator after the attack has completely ended cannot be considered under this provision.
7. STATE OF NECESSITY
The state of necessity regulated in Article 25/2 of the Turkish Penal Code, while similar to self-defense, is a different legal institution.
According to the law, if a person does not knowingly cause an act, and there is no other way to escape a serious and imminent danger to their own rights or the rights of others, the perpetrator shall not be punished for the act, provided that the severity of the danger is proportionate to the means used.
The fundamental difference between self-defense and necessity is this:
Self-defense involves an unjustified attack. Necessity, however, involves a dangerous situation.
This danger does not necessarily have to stem from a person's wrongful behavior.
For example, a natural disaster, fire, animal attack, or other extraordinary situation can be the basis for a state of necessity.
A typical example would be breaking down someone else's door to escape a large fire. While the material elements of the crime of damaging property might come into play under normal circumstances, the conditions of necessity can be considered if the person has no other option but to save their life.
For the state of necessity to be applicable;
- a serious and imminent danger,
- the danger was not intentionally caused,
- the absence of any other means of protection,
- a reasonable ratio between the risk and the legal value sacrificed
is being sought.
8. EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT
According to Article 26/1 of the Turkish Penal Code:
"No punishment shall be given to someone who exercises their right."
Actions performed while exercising a right granted to a person by a legal norm do not constitute a crime.
However, the right must genuinely be recognized by the legal system and exercised within its limits.
For example, the right to criticize, the right to complain, the right to sue, or rights arising from certain professional activities may be considered within this scope in some cases.
However, the existence of a right does not grant a person unlimited freedom of action.
For example, the right to complain does not give a person the right to knowingly make false accusations. Similarly, the existence of freedom of criticism does not automatically mean that any statement constituting defamation, depending on the specific circumstances, is lawful.
9. CONSENT OF THE PERSON CONCERNED
According to Article 26/2 of the Turkish Penal Code, no penalty shall be imposed for an act performed within the scope of consent given by the person regarding a right over which he or she has absolute control.
For consent to exist, the person giving consent must first have the power to dispose of the legally relevant asset.
In addition, consent;
- It must be present before the action or at the latest at the time the action is performed
- based on free will,
- consent must be given by a person who has the capacity to express consent
- encompassing the actual act performed
is necessary.
Not every legal asset can be freely disposed of.
Therefore, the "victim consented" defense does not eliminate criminal responsibility for every crime.
10. COERCION, VIOLENCE, INTIMIDATION, AND THREATS
According to Article 28 of the Turkish Penal Code, no punishment shall be imposed on a person who commits a crime as a result of coercion and violence that he or she cannot resist or escape from, or as a result of imminent and severe intimidation or threat.
In this case, the person who uses force, violence, or threats is considered the perpetrator of the crime.
This regulation is fundamentally based on the elimination of freedom of will .
Not every threat falls under Article 28 of the Turkish Penal Code.
The threat must be so serious and imminent as to severely impair the person's free will.
For example, being forced to commit a crime under the threat that oneself or one's relatives will be killed immediately is not evaluated in the same way as a simple threat of inflicting unspecified harm in the future.
In this specific case;
- the severity of the threat,
- probability of happening
- the perpetrator's possibility of avoiding the threat,
- the possibility of contacting law enforcement authorities,
- the connection between threats and crimes committed
They should be evaluated together.
11. UNJUST PROVOCATION
The provision for unjust provocation, regulated in Article 29 of the Turkish Penal Code, is not a mechanism that completely eliminates criminal responsibility, but rather that reduces the punishment .
According to the law, a person who commits a crime under the influence of anger or intense distress caused by an unjust act receives a reduction in their sentence. Special sentence ranges have been determined for life imprisonment and aggravated life imprisonment, while for other sentences, a reduction of one-quarter to three-quarters is foreseen.
The Supreme Court's Criminal General Assembly defines unjust provocation as a decrease in the perpetrator's capacity for culpability due to the weakening of their will caused by the wrongful act. According to the Supreme Court's established approach, for unjust provocation to be applicable, there must be a wrongful act, the perpetrator must be under anger or intense distress, the crime committed must be a reaction to this mental state, and, as a rule, the provocative behavior must originate from the victim.
11.1. There Must Be a Wrongful Act
The behavior that triggers the provocation does not necessarily have to constitute a crime.
An act that can be deemed wrong by the legal system is sufficient.
However, a reduction in sentence due to unjust provocation cannot be applied to behavior that was entirely lawful.
11.2. Anger or Intense Distress Must Occur
The perpetrator must have been psychologically affected by the wrongful act.
Here, anger refers to rage, while intense sorrow expresses profound sadness, pain, and emotional distress.
11.3. The Crime Must Be Committed Under the Influence of Provocation
There must be a psychological causal link between the wrongful act and the crime committed.
The passage of time alone does not negate the element of provocation. What matters is whether the psychological impact of the provocation persisted at the time of the crime.
Indeed, the Criminal General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Appeals also states that the provisions on provocation can be applied in cases where it is necessary to accept that the psychological effect of the wrongful act continues.
11.4. Mutual Unfair Conduct
One of the most contentious issues in practice is when parties engage in mutually unfair behavior.
According to the Supreme Court, as a rule, the person who commits the first wrongful act cannot benefit from the defense of provocation due to the other party's reaction to it.
However, if the other party's reaction is clearly disproportionate compared to the initial action, this new action may become an independent tort, and the provisions regarding incitement may be reconsidered.
12. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SELF-DEFENSE AND UNJUST PROVOCATION
One of the most frequently confused concepts in practice is self-defense versus unjust provocation.
The difference between them is extremely important.
In self-defense:
There is an ongoing or imminent unlawful attack, and the perpetrator is acting to neutralize the attack.
In cases of unjust provocation:
The perpetrator commits the crime under the influence of anger or intense distress arising from an unjust act.
If the conditions for self-defense are met, the act is lawful and the perpetrator will not be punished.
In cases of unjust provocation, the act committed remains unlawful; only the punishment is reduced due to the decrease in the perpetrator's culpability.
For example, self-defense may be invoked if a person, in order to neutralize someone who is continuing to attack with a knife, sustains a necessary and proportionate injury.
Conversely, if harm is inflicted on an aggressor purely out of anger after the aggressor has been neutralized and the attack has ended, it may be considered provocation, if the conditions are met, rather than self-defense.
ERROR 13
Article 30 of the Turkish Penal Code regulates the effect of error on the intent and culpability of the perpetrator in criminal law.
The error can manifest in several different ways.
13.1. Error in the Material Elements of the Crime
According to Article 30/1 of the Turkish Penal Code, a person who is unaware of the material elements of the legal definition of the crime at the time of its commission cannot be considered to have acted intentionally.
However, if the conditions for negligent liability are met, liability due to negligence may continue.
For example, if someone takes an item believing it to be their own without knowing it belongs to someone else, it may not be possible to speak of theft as an act of intent to steal.
13.2. Errors in Qualified Cases
If the perpetrator is mistaken about whether the crime has an aggravated or mitigating circumstance requiring a more severe penalty, they may benefit from their mistake under Article 30/2 of the Turkish Penal Code.
The Supreme Court's Criminal General Assembly also accepts that in aggravated circumstances, the perpetrator's mistake should be taken into account in determining responsibility.
13.3. Errors in Reasons Eliminating or Reducing Criminal Liability
According to Article 30/3 of the Turkish Penal Code, an unavoidable error benefits from this error.
For example, the situation of a person who, despite no actual attack occurring, inevitably believes they are about to be attacked based on the specific circumstances of the event, can be discussed within this context.
The Supreme Court also requires that the error be unavoidable in relation to this provision; it emphasizes that not every error resulting from carelessness or negligence eliminates criminal liability.
13.4. The Fallacy of Injustice
Another important aspect of Article 30 of the Turkish Penal Code is the inevitable misconception that the act committed constitutes a wrong.
Here, the individual is aware of the material aspects of their action, but inevitably does not know that their behavior is prohibited by law.
The distinction between error and mistaken belief is particularly emphasized in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, and it is accepted that errors regarding the limits of the norm and errors regarding the material circumstances of the event should be evaluated differently.
14. YOUNG AGE
Article 31 of the Turkish Penal Code differentiates the criminal responsibility of children according to their age groups.
In criminal law, it is accepted that children do not possess the same capacity for culpability as adults.
14.1. Children Under Twelve Years of Age
Children who have not reached the age of twelve at the time of committing the act are not subject to criminal liability.
These children cannot be prosecuted criminally; however, child-specific security measures can be applied.
Here, the legislator accepts that the child is not criminally liable without the need for further examination of whether the child understood the meaning of the act in the specific case.
14.2. Twelve-Fifteen Years Old Group
An individual assessment is made regarding children who have reached the age of twelve but have not yet reached the age of fifteen at the time of committing the act.
The child;
- whether he/she understands the legal meaning and consequences of the act he/she committed,
- whether their ability to control their behavior is sufficiently developed
It must be determined.
The absence of these abilities does not constitute criminal responsibility for the child.
If found, a reduction in sentence will be applied to the child due to their young age.
14.3. Fifteen to Eighteen Years Old Group
Individuals who are fifteen years old but not yet eighteen at the time of committing the act are held criminally liable, but the sentence is reduced due to their young age.
This is based on the idea that even though people in this age group have greatly improved perceptual abilities, their ability to direct their behavior is not entirely at the same level as adults.
15. MENTAL ILLNESS
Article 32 of the Turkish Penal Code regulates the effect of mental illness on criminal responsibility.
The important thing here is not simply whether the person has a psychiatric illness.
of mental illness on a person's ability to perceive or control their behavior at the time the crime is committed is assessed.
15.1. Complete Mental Illness
If a person is unable to understand the legal meaning and consequences of their actions or has a significantly reduced ability to control their behavior due to mental illness, they shall not be punished.
However, security measures specific to mentally ill individuals may be applied to the person.
Therefore, "not being punished" does not mean that the person will not be subject to any legal measures.
15.2. Reduced Criminal Liability
According to Article 32/2 of the Turkish Penal Code, if a person's abilities are significantly reduced, even if not completely lost, criminal liability continues, but a reduction in sentence may be applied as stipulated by law.
The Supreme Court's Criminal General Assembly requires that, in assessing mental illness, it be determined without a doubt whether the illness existed at the time of the crime and whether it affected the perpetrator's ability to perceive or control their behavior.
Indeed, the General Assembly of Criminal Courts has accepted that a health report, which is internally contradictory, is insufficient for rendering a verdict, and that an expert report on whether the perpetrator has a full or partial mental illness, which can serve as the basis for a judgment, must be obtained.
Therefore, in criminal proceedings, it is not sufficient for a person to simply have a psychiatric diagnosis. The main question should be:
To what extent did mental illness affect the perpetrator's capacity for culpability at the time the crime was committed?
16. DEAFNESS AND MUTE
Article 33 of the Turkish Penal Code is a special provision that takes into account the impact of congenital or early childhood deafness and muteness on the development of a person's ability to perceive and direct their behavior.
According to the law, provisions regarding age of minority apply to older age groups in the case of deaf and mute individuals.
Accordingly;
- The provisions relating to children under the age of twelve, and to deaf and mute persons under the age of fifteen,
- The provisions relating to children between the ages of twelve and fifteen, and to deaf and mute persons between the ages of fifteen and eighteen,
- The provisions relating to children between the ages of fifteen and eighteen apply to deaf and mute persons between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one
is being implemented.
This regulation does not consider deafness and muteness as a mental illness in themselves. The basis of the regulation is that a person's social and intellectual development may differ due to communication barriers.
17. TEMPORARY REASONS
According to Article 34/1 of the Turkish Penal Code, no punishment shall be imposed on a person who, due to a temporary reason, is unable to perceive the legal meaning and consequences of their actions or whose ability to control their behavior is significantly diminished.
A temporary cause, as opposed to a permanent mental illness, refers to conditions that temporarily affect a person's capacity for culpability.
It is particularly important that this cause was not intentionally created by the perpetrator.
In practice, certain temporary disturbances of consciousness, illnesses, or extraordinary physiological and psychiatric conditions may be considered within this scope. This often requires expertise in forensic medicine and psychiatry. Academic studies also emphasize that the concept of "temporary cause" under Article 34 of the Turkish Penal Code is a criminal responsibility problem that is examined separately from a forensic psychiatric perspective.
18. BEING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS
The Turkish Penal Code makes an important distinction regarding crimes committed under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
18.1. Involuntary Ingestion of Alcohol or Drugs
If a person involuntarily consumes alcohol or drugs and is therefore unable to understand the legal meaning and consequences of their actions, or their ability to control their behavior is significantly diminished, it is possible to exempt them from punishment under Article 34/1 of the Turkish Penal Code.
For example, theoretically, adding drugs to someone's drink without their knowledge could be considered within this scope.
However, it must be proven that the person involuntarily took the substance and that this affected their capacity for culpability to the degree required by law.
18.2. Voluntary Alcohol or Drug Use
Article 34/2 of the Turkish Penal Code establishes a clear rule:
A person who commits a crime under the influence of voluntarily consumed alcohol or drugs cannot benefit from the provisions of the first paragraph.
Therefore, the mere defense of "I don't remember what I did" after voluntarily consuming a large amount of alcohol does not absolve a person of criminal responsibility.
Current Supreme Court practice also accepts that voluntary alcohol consumption does not negate criminal liability under Article 34 of the Turkish Penal Code.
19. PROOF OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT EXCEL CRIMINAL LIABILITY
In criminal proceedings, evaluating these reasons often requires a detailed reconstruction of the event.
Especially;
- camera recordings,
- witness testimonies,
- crime scene investigation reports,
- forensic reports,
- weapons and ballistics examinations,
- previous messages between the parties,
- health records,
- psychiatric reports,
- HTS and digital data
It is extremely important.
For example, in a claim of self-defense, it should not be sufficient to rely solely on the defendant's statement that "he attacked me.".
The moment the attack began, whether it continued, the vehicle used by the attacker, the location of the injuries, the physical condition of the parties, and the manner in which the incident occurred should all be evaluated together.
In cases of mental illness, not only the perpetrator's current psychiatric condition but also, and especially, their capacity for culpability at the time of the crime should be investigated.
In cases of unjust provocation, the existence of an unjust act originating from the victim and the impact of this act on the perpetrator's psychology must be determined with concrete evidence.
20. THE FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN GROUNDS THAT ELIMINATE AND REDUCE CRIMINAL LIABILITY
When the issue is considered systematically, three different legal consequences emerge.
Group 1: Reasons that make an action legally permissible
These include, in particular:
- enforcement of the law
- legitimate self-defense
- exercise of the right
- valid consent of the person concerned
For example.
In this case, the illegality of the behavior is eliminated.
Second group: Reasons that negate fault
For example;
- severe mental illness
- certain cases of being underage,
- irresistible coercion or grave threat,
- certain temporary reasons
It can eliminate the perpetrator's culpability for the act.
The act remains unlawful, yet the perpetrator is not punished.
Third group: Factors that reduce the risk of defect
Unjust provocation and certain cases involving minority status or mental illness can be cited as examples.
In this case, criminal liability is not completely eliminated; the perpetrator receives a lesser sentence.
21. THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT IN PRACTICE: EVALUATING THE ENTIRE CASE
In determining factors that eliminate or reduce criminal liability, how the event actually occurred is as important as the theoretical rules themselves.
For example, the same behavior in a case of intentional bodily harm;
- Legitimate self-defense if carried out while the attack is ongoing .
- If the limits of legitimate self-defense are exceeded due to fear or panic, then Article 27/2 of the Turkish Penal Code.
- If the act was committed immediately after the attack ended, in a fit of rage caused by the attack, it constitutes unjust provocation.
- The error occurs if the perpetrator has inevitably misjudged that they were under attack.
This can be discussed within that context.
However, the results from these institutions are completely different from each other.
Therefore, when legally characterizing the defense in a criminal case, the focus should be not only on the type of crime but also on the chronology of the events .
In particular, it is important to determine when the attack began and ended, what actions the perpetrator took at each point, and the psychological state in which these actions occurred.
22. CONCLUSION
Reasons that eliminate or reduce criminal liability are one of the most important reflections of the principle of culpability and the concept of justice in Turkish criminal law. The legal system does not determine criminal liability solely by looking at the resulting outcome; it also takes into account the circumstances under which the person acted, whether they had the opportunity to control their behavior, and whether the act could have been avoided.
Within the system regulated in Articles 24 to 34 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, the following are subject to different conditions and consequences: fulfillment of a legal provision, self-defense, necessity, exercise of a right, consent of the person concerned, coercion and threat, unjust provocation, error, minority, mental illness, deafness and muteness, and temporary reasons.
Within these institutions, the distinction between legitimate self-defense, exceeding the limits of legitimate self-defense, and unjust provocation is of great importance in practice. While necessary and proportionate self-defense undertaken to ward off an ongoing unjust attack is lawful, committing a crime after the attack has ended under the influence of anger or intense distress can only lead to the application of the unjust provocation reduction. However, exceeding the limits of legitimate self-defense due to justifiable fear, excitement, or panic caused by the attack may result in impunity under Article 27/2 of the Turkish Penal Code.
Similarly, in cases of mental illness, minority, and temporary causes, it is not sufficient for a person to merely possess a specific characteristic. Essentially, it is necessary to assess their ability to perceive and control their behavior at the time the crime was committed. The Supreme Court's emphasis in its jurisprudence, particularly regarding mental illness, that medical reports used as the basis for judgment must be clear, verifiable, and capable of establishing the person's criminal responsibility at the time of the crime, is a result of this approach.
In cases of unjust provocation, the established approach of the Supreme Court of Appeals does not merely consider the existence of the victim's wrongful conduct sufficient; it investigates whether this act genuinely caused anger or intense distress in the perpetrator, and whether the crime was committed under the influence of this psychological state. In determining the rate of reduction for provocation, the nature, intensity, and timing of the wrongful act, as well as the mutual conduct of the parties, should be evaluated within the context of the specific case.
In conclusion, grounds for eliminating or reducing criminal liability should not be viewed as secondary defenses in criminal proceedings. Depending on the specifics of the case, these provisions can make the difference between a person being sentenced to a severe punishment, being acquitted, or having no grounds for punishment imposed. Therefore, during the investigation and prosecution phases, the manner in which the incident occurred, the behavior of the parties, the psychological and physiological state of the perpetrator, the nature of the attack or threat, and all available material evidence should be evaluated together to determine in detail which ground for eliminating or reducing criminal liability can be applied.
In Turkish criminal law, the fundamental condition for fair punishment is not only answering the question "what did the perpetrator do?" , but also "under what circumstances and to what extent did they act of free will?" . The common aim of regulations concerning grounds that eliminate or reduce criminal responsibility is precisely this.
About Post Author
