TO CONTACT NOW 0 541 485 92 48
WANTED KILL
WANTED KILLTCK article 181 “The person who kills a person deliberately is punished with life imprisonment”
For the crime of willful killing to occur, the act must be committed by the perpetrator against another person. The perpetrator’s killing himself does not constitute the crime of willful killing, nor is it a crime.
The perpetrator of the crime of murder can be anyone. There is no feature in terms of the perpetrator of the crime.
The victim of deliberate murder can only be human. Since the legal benefit sought to be protected by this crime is the right to live, the victim must be alive. Being alive requires being born alive; It also makes it compulsory to be alive at the time of the acts constituting the crime. It doesn’t matter if the victim’s age, gender, race, nationality, physical or mental defect or even death. In fact, attacks on the corpse of a person who has died do not constitute this crime.
Intentional killing is a free-moving crime. The perpetrator must take any action that will destroy the victim’s life. This act may be act or omission. The death of the victim as a result of the action taken constitutes the consequential part of the material element of the crime. There must be a causal relationship between the action and the result.
In the event that the result of death occurs due to reasons that existed before the perpetrator’s act but unknown to the perpetrator or due to the addition of unexpected circumstances outside the perpetrator’s will, it should be evaluated whether the outcome in the concrete event can be attributed to the perpetrator in the natural, customary process of the events that occurred and according to general life experiences. . As a matter of fact, the decision of the Criminal General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Appeals, 04.10.1993-4-153/215, stated, “In order to determine whether there is a causal link, it is necessary to determine whether the action of the perpetrator has the opportunity to create the result, or whether this action is purely coincidental in terms of the result.” saying, in cases where the perpetrator cannot be attributed to himself, not from the completed result; however, he emphasized that it would be necessary to hold him responsible for the attempted crime. If the result is not normal, it cannot be attributed to the perpetrator; the provisions of the enterprise will be in question.
It is possible for the act of killing to be carried out gradually, over time. In addition, it is not necessary for the act to be performed in one place. The vehicle used is irrelevant for the crime to occur. The important thing is to use a tool that is suitable for producing the death outcome.
It is possible to commit a crime with moral acts. For example, causing the victim to die as a result of severe intimidation with the intent to kill. The important thing here is to determine the causal relationship between the action and the result. If the aforementioned relation cannot be determined definitively, the perpetrator should be acquitted due to the principle that the accused benefits from doubt.
If the actions taken are in no way conducive to causing death, this crime cannot be committed. For example, it is not possible to commit the crime of willfully killing people through magic or curse.
It is possible that the person or persons who prevent the victim from doing the behaviors that will prevent his/her death may be deemed to have committed the crime of deliberate murder. In this direction, for example, a person who prevents a person with heart disease from taking his medicine will be responsible for the crime of willful killing if he has done this act knowingly and willingly, that is, deliberately.
The formation of the crime of willful killing depends on the fact that the act of killing is against the law. When the act of killing occurs as a result of the use of an authority based on the rules of law, the act will not constitute a crime, since there can be no talk of illegality. For example, in case of legitimate defense or necessity, the situation of unlawfulness will disappear.
In order for the crime of willful killing to occur, the perpetrator must realize the material element of the crime knowingly and willingly. As a result of committing the crime with possible intent, the penalty of the perpetrator is reduced in accordance with Article 21/2 of the TCK. If the perpetrator has acted with the intent to injure, but the victim has died as a result, the perpetrator will not be punished for the crime of willful killing; As a result of this situation, it can be evaluated within the scope of the crime of aggravated injury.
Reasons Aggravating the Crime
TCK m. 82- (1) The crime of deliberate killing; a) By design, b) By inflicting monstrous feelings or torment, c) By fire, flooding, destruction, sinking or bombing, or by using nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, d) Against a parent or descendant, or against a spouse or sibling, e) Against a child or a person who is unable to defend himself physically or mentally, f) Against a woman who is known to be pregnant, g) Because of the person’s public duty, h) To conceal a crime, to remove evidence or to facilitate its perpetration or to avoid being caught, i) (Annex: 29/6/2005 – 5377/9 art.) Out of indignation for not being able to commit a crime, j) With the motive of bloodletting, k) With the motive of custom, If committed, the person is sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment.
KILLING BY REACTION
Article 85- (1) A person who negligently causes the death of a person is punished with imprisonment from two to six years. (2) If the act causes the death of more than one person or the injury of one or more persons together with the death of one or more persons, the person is sentenced to imprisonment from two years to fifteen years.
The perpetrator does not want the result of death to occur; however, death occurs because he does not show the attention and care he should show. Punishment of the perpetrator for negligent act depends on the fact that this is clearly shown in the law. Because the main type of fault sought for the formation of the crime is intent; negligence is an exceptional form of negligence. If the act is not intentional and the law does not foresee that the crime can be committed by negligence, the perpetrator is acquitted. For this reason, negligent crimes are shown one by one in the law.
– Crime of killing by negligence (TCK 85),
-Injury by negligence (TCK 89),
– Negligent bankruptcy (TCK 162),
– Endangering the general security by negligence (TCK 171),
– Causing an explosion with atomic energy (TCK 173),
– Endangering traffic safety by negligence (TCK 180),
– Pollution of the environment by negligence (TCK 182),
– Disclosure of information on the security and political benefits of the state (TCK 329),
– Disclosure of prohibited information (TCK 336),
– Processing acts of espionage as a result of negligence (TCK 338)
In order to cause death by negligence, there must be a causal relationship between the act and the result, and the result of death must have emerged as a result of the act of the perpetrator.
The fact that the death result is caused by the actions of more than one person does not affect the causal relationship. In such a case, each perpetrator will be at his own fault and their punishment will be determined in proportion to their faults, pursuant to Article 22/5 of the TCK.
In cases where the result of death is caused by the participation of other reasons in the negligent act, the perpetrator is not due to negligence; however, it is held responsible for causing injury by negligence. If the result of negligent crime is not predictable, care and attention cannot be expected from the perpetrator.
According to the Court of Cassation, in cases where death is caused by negligence, not only which action of the perpetrator was wrong, but also what positive action and how he should do in order to prevent the death outcome in the concrete case is also taken into consideration. It is accepted that the perpetrator has not fulfilled his duty of care in cases where it can be said that if the perpetrator had acted like a cautious person, death would not have occurred, or that if the prudent person had been in the perpetrator’s place, he would have acted differently.
Reasons Aggravating the Crime
TCK m.22/3 Although the person does not want the result foreseen, there is conscious negligence in the event that the result occurs; in this case, the penalty for negligent offense is increased from one third to one half.
Mitigating Reasons
TCK m.22/6 If the result caused by the negligent act has caused the perpetrator to become a victim in a way that makes it unnecessary to impose a penalty, exclusively in terms of his personal and family situation, no punishment is given; The penalty to be imposed in case of deliberate negligence can be reduced from half to one sixth.
Stj.Av. DİLAN ECEM CEYLAN
TO CONTACT NOW 0 541 485 92 48
