Voluntary Withdrawal

According to the Turkish Penal Code, if the perpetrator voluntarily abandons the act of committing the crime or strives to prevent the consequences of the crime from occurring, they will not be punished for attempted crime. However, if the acts committed before abandoning the act constitute a crime, they will be punished for those acts.

For voluntary withdrawal to be considered, the crime must have reached at least the attempt stage and must have been committed intentionally. For a perpetrator who wishes to benefit from the provisions of voluntary withdrawal by preventing the consequences of the crime, the condition is that they engage in an active and strong effort. Post-committing behaviors that do not fall under the scope of voluntary withdrawal are subject to the provisions of effective repentance.

Abandonment must be a decision made voluntarily by the perpetrator. For example, if they abandon the act by chance, change the instrument of the crime, or pause for a while, this is not a voluntary abandonment.

According to the Turkish Penal Code, effective repentance is when the perpetrator, after the completion of the crime, feels remorse and takes actions to remedy the consequences of committing the crime. Its difference from voluntary withdrawal is that it can occur after the crime is completed. Voluntary withdrawal, on the other hand, occurs between the commencement of the act of committing the crime and its completion. Another difference concerns the crimes to which it can be applied. While the institution of voluntary withdrawal can be applied to all crimes as long as the conditions are met, the provisions on effective repentance can only be applied to crimes specified by law.

In cases of voluntary withdrawal, the perpetrator is not punished for the attempted crime they abandoned. They are only punished for actions that, in themselves, constitute a crime up to the moment of withdrawal. However, when we look at the institution of effective repentance, sometimes it completely absolves the perpetrator of guilt, and sometimes the perpetrator receives a sentence, but it is reduced.

• "Since the abandonment occurs before the crime is completed or before the outcome is reached, voluntary abandonment differs from effective repentance. Effective repentance regulates repentance after the completion of the crime and includes the redress of damages caused by a completed crime, restoration to the previous state, or return of property." (Supreme Court of Appeals, 15th Criminal Chamber, Case No. 2020/5893 E. 2020/9594 K., October 7, 2020)
• "According to the accepted view, if the perpetrator abandons the constructive actions halfway through, believing that they can carry them to completion, and despite this belief, does not continue with the constructive actions, then there is voluntary abandonment. However, if the reason for the perpetrator's abandonment is that they believe they cannot carry the constructive actions to completion, that there is no possibility of further progress on the path of crime, then the abandonment is not voluntary." (Supreme Court of Appeals, 6th Criminal Chamber, Case No. 2015/6340 E., Decision No. 2018/2920 K., April 16, 2018)
• "Unlike voluntary abandonment of the act of committing a crime, merely ceasing the act of committing a crime after it has been committed—even if voluntary—is not sufficient; according to Article 36 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, the perpetrator must also prevent the completion of the crime or the realization of the result through their own efforts. For this, the perpetrator must engage in voluntary, active action to prevent the realization of the result." (Supreme Court of Appeals, 22nd Criminal Chamber, Case No. 2015/7688 E., Decision No. 2015/8260 K., December 2, 2015)
• "(...)the defendant did not voluntarily abandon his actions and his desire for the outcome to occur while inside; he fled out of fear when witness ... stood up to press the alarm button while he was trying to open the shop window. There was no voluntary abandonment, and the termination of the act occurred under the influence of external factors, without any contribution from the perpetrator." (Supreme Court Criminal General Assembly 2015/258 E. 2017/486 K. 21.11.2017 T.)