Differences Between Restoration of Prohibited Rights and Suspension of Sentence
Entrance
Turkish Criminal Law has developed various institutions for determining and executing sentences for individuals who commit crimes. These institutions are designed sometimes to mitigate the execution of the sentence, and sometimes to eliminate the legal consequences arising from the sentence. Restoration of prohibited rights and suspension of sentence are two of the most frequently confused of these institutions. Both institutions offer individuals a second chance; however, they contain significant differences in terms of purpose, scope, and results.
In this article, we will first explain the definitions and legal basis of both institutions, then evaluate their conditions, areas of application, and consequences. Finally, the differences in light of Supreme Court decisions and emphasize their importance in practice.
Restoration of Prohibited Rights: Concept and Legal Framework
The restoration of prohibited rightsis an institution that ensures the removal of certain prohibitions arising from criminal conviction. Article 53 of the Turkish Penal Code regulates the deprivation of certain rights as a natural consequence of conviction. For example:
-
Not being able to become a public servant,
-
Losing the right to vote and stand for election,
-
The emergence of a ban on forming associations.
These deprivations of rights may continue even after the sentence has been served. The restoration of prohibited rights is the lifting of these restrictions by a court decision after the completion of the sentence and the passage of a certain period.
Conditions:
-
The sentence has been fully executed,
-
No crime must have been committed for at least three years following the execution of the sentence
-
Determining that the person is of good character.
Application: The request for restoration of prohibited rights is made to the Criminal Court of First Instance in the place where the convict resides . If the court finds the conditions suitable, it decides to lift the restrictions.
Suspension of Sentence: Concept and Legal Framework
Suspension of sentence, regulated in Article 51 of the Turkish Penal Code, refers to the postponement of the execution of short-term prison sentences. The sentence is not abolished; the judgment remains final. However, if the defendant does not commit another crime for a certain period, the sentence is considered to have been served.
Conditions:
-
Prison sentences of two years or less (three years for children and the elderly),
-
The perpetrator must not have previously received a prison sentence of more than three months for an intentional crime
-
The defendant's positive demeanor during the trial,
-
Compensation for damages resulting from a crime.
Conclusion:
The court sets a probation period (1–3 years). If the offender does not commit a crime during this period, the sentence is considered served. If a new crime is committed, the suspended sentence is enforced.
Comparison of the Two Institutions
1. Difference in Purpose
-
The restoration of prohibited rightsaims to eliminate the ongoing deprivation of rights following a conviction.
-
Suspension of the sentence , however, subjects the execution of the sentence to supervision.
2. Timing Difference
-
The restoration of prohibited rightsbecomes an issue after the sentence has been served.
-
The suspension of a sentenceis applied as soon as the sentence becomes final, but before its execution.
3. Application and Decision-Making Authority
-
have prohibited rights restored, an application must be made to the court.
-
The suspension of a sentenceis decided by the court ex officio or upon request during the sentencing.
4. Results
-
The restoration of prohibited rightsenables an individual to regain their public rights.
-
A suspended sentenceprevents imprisonment, but the criminal record remains.
In Light of Supreme Court Decisions
-
In its decision numbered 2017/1694 E., 2019/5159 K., the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation emphasized that a three-year waiting period after the execution of the sentence is necessary for the restoration of prohibited rights.
-
In its decision numbered 2018/2534 E., 2019/4789 K., the 7th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation stated that the probation period must be fully determined in the postponement decision.
These decisions clearly demonstrate that the two institutions became involved at different stages and should not be confused with each other.
Case Study in Practice
Case 1 – Suspension of Sentence:
Ahmet received a 1 year and 6 month prison sentence for simple assault. He has no prior criminal record and has compensated the victim for the damages. The court suspended his sentence for a 2-year probationary period. If Ahmet completes this period without committing any crime, he will not go to prison; his sentence will be considered served.
Case 2 – Restoration of Civil Rights:
Mehmet received a 3-year prison sentence for fraud and completed his sentence in 2020. He committed no crimes until 2023 and led a good-behaved life. In 2023, he applied to the Criminal Court of First Instance for the restoration of his civil rights, and the court granted the request. Thus, Mehmet regained his right to enter public service.
Critical Evaluation
While both institutions are legally beneficial, they are often misunderstood by the public.
-
The postponement is perceived as if the punishment has been completely eliminated.
-
The restoration of revoked rights is often perceived as "erasing a criminal record." However, the records remain in the archives; only the deprivation of rights is lifted.
Therefore, it is necessary for practitioners and citizens to clearly understand the differences.
Conclusion
of prohibited rights and of sentenceare two institutions in Turkish Criminal Law that serve different purposes. The former removes the deprivation of rights after the sentence, while the latter gives the convict a chance by postponing the execution of the sentence.
Supreme Court rulings demonstrate that both institutions are subject to strict regulations. Correct interpretation of these differences by legal practitioners is crucial for ensuring both a sense of justice and legal certainty.
Law Faculty Student Ada Ceren KENDİGELEN
About Post Author
