The Central Exam Crimes as Defined by Law No. 6114 Placement Center Presidency
Mustafa LimoncuSecurely conducting central exams attracts not only the attention of the candidates taking them but also the public, as anysuspicion regarding such exams ruins trust in public authority. Thus, how exam rules are set beforehand, how the questions are prepared and transferred to the exam locations, as well as how the questions are evaluated should be adequately addressed. Moreover, any problems or misconduct that might occur should fall under judicial sanctions, as administrative sanctions may be insufficient. Thus, exam security should also be subject to criminal law. Law No. 6114 on the Organization and Duties of the Central Directorate of Measurement, Selection, and Placement Center [MSPC] Presidency regarding exam evaluation and candidate selection and placement was enacted on February 17, 2011 and covers how central exams are processed. Relatedly, Article 10 of this law also defines certain crimes specific to exams in addition to document forgery and malfeasance, taking these crimes into consideration alongside their elements. This research questions which exams Law No. 6114 is meant to be applied and analyzes the appropriateness of this regulation.
6114 Sayılı Öğrenci Seçme ve Yerleştirme Merkezi Kanununda Düzenlenen Sınav Suçları
Mustafa LimoncuMerkezi sınavların güvenlik içerisinde yapılması; sınava giren adaylar kadar kamuoyunu da yakından ilgilendirmekte, sınavlar hakkındaki herhangi bir şaibe kamu otoritesini zedelemektedir. Bu nedenle sınavlara ilişkin kurallarının önceden belirlenmesi, soruların hazırlanması, sınav evrakının sınav merkezlerine transferi ve sınav sonuçlarının değerlendirilmesi süreçlerinde güvenliğin itinayla sağlanması gerekmektedir. Dahası sınav süreçlerinde yaşanacak olası sorunlar ve suistimaller hukuki yaptırıma bağlanmalıdır çünkü idari yaptırımlar yetersiz kalabilmektedir. Bu nedenle, konu, ceza hukuku yaptırımlarıyla güvence altına alınmalıdır. Merkezi sınavların nasıl yapılacağına dair 6114 Sayılı Ölçme, Seçme ve Yerleştirme Merkezi Başkanlığının Teşkilat ve Görevleri Hakkında Kanun 17 Şubat 2011’de çıkarılmıştır. Türk Ceza Kanunu’nda yer alan; ‘belgede sahtecilik’ ve ‘görev suçları’na ilave olarak, mezkûr kanunun 10. maddesi ile sınavlara özgü bazı suçlar ihdas edilmiş ve bu suçlar, unsurlarıyla birlikte ele alınmıştır. Bu araştırma, 6114 sayılı Kanun’un hangi sınavlar bakımından uygulanacağı sorgulamakta ve düzenlemenin isabetli olup olmadığını analiz etmektedir.
The Measurement, Selection, and Placement Center [MSPC] regarding exams and candidate selection and placement conducts several national exams, including the university entrance exams and civil servant exams. Preparing the exam questions, determining which candidates are to take exams, ensuring exams are conducted securely, and announcing results require many essential administrative mechanisms.
Although conducting and evaluating exams are considered administrative tasks, exam security and crimes regarding the exams constitute themes that fall under criminal law. Law No. 6114 on the Organization and Duties of MSPC was enacted on February 17, 2011 and states that exams are to be held within the equal opportunity framework. As this paper explains in detail, Law No. 6114 is applicable to the exams conducted by the MSPC as well as by the Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. The article evaluates how the penal provisions in this law are not applicable for exams run by any public institutions and organizations other than MSPC or MoNE. Some decisions by the Supreme Court of Appeal have incorrectly addressed this issue. Law No. 6114 mandates that exam questions and their drafters’ identities be kept confidential. Moreover, questions from the question pool cannot be shared with third parties under any circumstances, whether in whole or in part.
Again, the very first sentence of Paragraph 2 in Article 10 of Law No. 6114 defines the unlawful obtainment or possession ofconfidential information as a crime, as well as the disclosure of said confidential information. This paper holds that the crimeof illegally obtaining or keeping confidential information and the crime of disclosing this information can be handled within the scope of criminal intent and under aggregated crimes.
Paragraph 3 of Article 10Law No. 6114 defines the crime of cheating. People who cheat either individually or collectively, as well as those who enable cheating, are to be punished in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. The same regulation covers cheating with devices that transmit sounds /or images. The act of cheating using technological devices has not been regulated as a qualified form of cheating and remains open to discussion. The fact that this type of cheating does not qualify as cheating is not appropriate. In addition, the exam on behalf of another candidate or charging someone for the exam other than the one taking it have also been defined as crimes.
Aiding the crime of cheating is defined as an independent crime. Lawmakers have differentiated this crime from the general provisions regarding the act of being an accomplice to cheating through Paragraph 3. Another crime defined in Paragraph 4 of Article 10 in Law No. 6114 is the crime of changing exam results. Anyone who changes the results of an exam in favor or against a candidate is to be punished according to this paragraph. The crime described here is related to altering exam results. However, this paragraph makes no specific definitions regarding how or by which methods changing an exam result becomes a crime. In addition, the paragraph makes no distinctions between candidates or public officials in terms of the identity of the perpetrator. Thus, defining public employees as also being able to perpetrate this crime could also have been easily regulated as one of the qualifying characteristics.
This paper conceptualizes the crimes defined in Law No. 6114 as exam crimes, as most of the crimes regulated in this law take the form of secondary norms that are regulated on a conditional basis. If the act constitutes another crime that requires a steeper penalty, the specified secondary norm will then not be applied. This theme is taken into consideration within the framework of aggregation in criminal law. This study finds the absence of effective reparations to be open to criticism. The single qualified casewithin the scope of the law is, crime being committed as an criminal organizational activity.
