The crime of attempted murder occurs when the perpetrator, who started the act with a move suitable for killing a person intentionally, cannot complete it due to reasons beyond his control. Intent is regulated in Article 21 of the Turkish Penal Code. According to this regulation, “Intent is the knowing and willing execution of the elements in the legal definition of the crime.”

Criteria for the Crime of Intentional Murder

In the crime of attempted murder, the perpetrator’s intent must be carefully evaluated. It should be noted that the intent sought here is not to leave the act at the stage of attempt, but to complete the crime in question. If the perpetrator’s intent is to kill, the perpetrator will be punished for the crime of attempted murder, and if the perpetrator’s intent is to injure, the perpetrator will be punished for the crime of inflicting injury on his behalf. The General Assembly of the Criminal Court of Cassation, in its decision numbered 2008/88 E., 2008/84 K. and dated 08.07.2008, specifies the criteria by which the existence of intent to kill will be evaluated. These criteria are:

Whether there was a pre-incident hostility between the perpetrator and the victim that necessitated killing,
Whether the means used in the incident was suitable for killing,
The number and severity of blows on the victim,
Whether the place where the blows were struck was of vital importance,
Whether the perpetrator stopped on his own or due to an obstacle,
The perpetrator’s behavior towards the victim after the incident.

First of all, the existence of one or all of these criteria is not sufficient to prove the existence of intent to kill. These criteria should be evaluated according to the characteristics of the concrete incident. For example, in one of its decisions, the Court of Cassation made an evaluation according to the characteristics of the concrete incident based on the existence of 17 stab wounds and concluded that there was no intent to kill in the incident. If it cannot be concluded beyond all doubt that the perpetrator had the intent to kill, it should be accepted that the perpetrator’s intent was to injure, considering the principle that the defendant benefits from the doubt.

Perpetrator-Victim Relationship

If there was any hostility between the perpetrator and the victim before the incident, it should be considered whether this hostility was at a level that would cause the perpetrator to act with the intent to kill. The judicial authorities will evaluate whether the hostility is this severe. According to the decisions of the Supreme Court, if the hostility is not at a serious level that would lead to killing, it should be concluded that the intent was not to kill. Like other criteria, the existence of serious hostility between the victim and the perpetrator alone will not prove the existence of intent to kill. When evaluated together with other criteria, although the existence of serious hostility between the victim and the perpetrator may reveal the existence of intent to kill, it is also possible for the victim and the perpetrator to act with intent to injure despite the serious hostility between them.

When assessing whether the vehicle used in the incident was suitable for killing, not only the vehicle being suitable for killing, but also the perpetrator using this vehicle in a manner suitable for killing should be sought.

The number and severity of the blows on the victim, and whether the location where the blows were struck were of vital importance are also important in examining whether there was intent to kill. In a decision, the General Assembly of the Criminal Court of Cassation concluded that it was doubtful that the defendants acted with intent to kill, since the life-threatening hits were limited to one, and concluded that the defendants’ actions should be evaluated as intentional wounding. In stab wounds, the fact that the blow hit vital organs, that these organs were struck more than once, and that the person was in mortal danger due to the perpetrator’s action, demonstrate that the perpetrator acted with intent to kill. However, in the possibility that the blow hit vital organs, the Court of Cassation is of the opinion that it should be investigated whether the intent was to strike these organs in terms of sudden events. If it is proven that the intent was directed towards the lethal areas but the victim does not die, a penalty for intentional attempted murder should be imposed, and if it is not proven that the intent was directed towards the lethal areas, a penalty for intentional wounding should be imposed. In the event of a life-threatening wound resulting from multiple stab wounds, the Court of Cassation accepts the existence of intent to kill. The Court of Cassation has also accepted the existence of intent to kill in the act of shooting the victim in the heart at close range with a gun.

Punishment for the Crime of Intentional Homicide

In the event that the perpetrator ends his act on his own and makes an effort to save the injured victim, it also reveals that the perpetrator’s intent is not to kill. In a decision of the Court of Cassation, according to the perpetrator’s intention to stop his act on his own and making an active effort to save the injured victim, despite there being no obstacle for him to continue, the perpetrator’s intention