Journal of Penal Law and Criminology

SUBMITINFORMATION
EnglishTürkçe

Research Article


DOI :10.26650/JPLC2022-1215273   IUP :10.26650/JPLC2022-1215273    Full Text (PDF)

An Error in the Objective Conditions of Personal Grounds for Exclusion of Punishment

Erkan Sarıtaş, Hazal Algan Canseven

Personal grounds for exclusion of punishment refer to personal reasons that prevent the offender from being punished despite the presence of the elements of typicality, illegality, and culpability existing at the time the crime was committed. How to make a legal assessment in terms of an offender who has made a mistake is a very controversial issue regarding the objective conditions of these grounds. For example, will a woman who steals money from someone else’s wallet thinking that it belonged to her husband benefit from personal grounds for exclusion of punishment with regard to crimes against property (Turkish Penal Code [TPC] Art. 167)? While the objective theories put forward on this subject deny that such an error has an effect on the offender’s criminal responsibility, subjective theories accept that this error will eliminate criminal responsibility in some if not all cases. Conversely, separative theory makes categorical distinctions among the personal grounds for exclusion of punishment and has reached different results for each category. This study discusses these views and their justifications and presents an opinion on how the issue should be resolved, firstly in terms of de lege ferenda and then in terms of de lege lata .

Keywords: personal reasons for exclusion of punishment, error, culpability
DOI :10.26650/JPLC2022-1215273   IUP :10.26650/JPLC2022-1215273    Full Text (PDF)

Şahsi Cezasızlık Sebeplerinin Maddi Şartlarında Hata

Erkan Sarıtaş, Hazal Algan Canseven

Şahsi cezasızlık sebepleri, istisnai olarak belli suç tipleri için öngörülen, tipiklik, hukuka aykırılık ve kusurluluk unsurları söz konusu olmasına rağmen failin cezalandırılmasını engelleyen ve suçun işlenmesi anında var olan şahsi sebepleri ifade etmekte olup bu sebeplerin maddi şartlarında hataya düşen fail açısından nasıl bir hukuki değerlendirme yapılacağı oldukça tartışmalı bir mesele olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Örneğin, eşine ait olduğunu zannederek aslında bir başkasının cüzdanından para (ç)alan kimse malvarlığına karşı suçlar için TCK m 167’de öngörülen şahsi cezasızlık sebebinden yararlanabilecek midir? Bu hususta ileri sürülen objektif teoriler söz konusu bu hatanın failin ceza sorumluluğuna etkisini tümüyle reddetmekte iken sübjektif teoriler, bu hatanın her durumda ya da en azından bazı hallerde ceza sorumluluğunu kaldıracağını kabul etmektedir. Buna karşılık ayırıcı teori şahsi cezasızlık sebepleri arasında kategorik bir ayrım yaparak her bir kategori açısından farklı sonuçlara ulaşmaktadır. Çalışmamızda bu görüşler ve gerekçeleri ele alınmakta ve evvela olması gereken hukuk, bilahare ise olan hukuk açısından meselenin nasıl çözümlenmesi gerektiğine dair görüşümüze yer verilmektedir.

Keywords: Şahsi cezasızlık sebepleri, hata, kusur

EXTENDED ABSTRACT


Personal grounds for exclusion of punishment refer to personal reasons that prevent an offender from being punished despite the presence of the elements of typicality, illegality, and culpability existing at the time the crime was committed. How to make a legal assessment in terms of an offender who has made a mistake is a very controversial issue regarding the objective conditions of these grounds.

According to the objective theories put forward in this regard, the objective presence of personal grounds for exclusion of punishment is decisive, and the offender’s ignorance of the objective conditions of these reasons will not affect their criminal liability, because these are objective reasons that are completely beyond injustice and culpability. 

On the other hand, according to strict subjective theories, a mistake made in terms of the objective conditions of personal grounds for exclusion of punishment should be accepted as also affecting the offender’s criminal responsibility. However, different theoretical and normative justifications have been put forward by various authors regarding the legal reason for this effect. 

Other authors who accept that a result should be attached to the offender’s subjective situation do not reject the arguments of objective theories, nor have they made a general assessment on this subject. Instead, they support limited subjective theories and argue that a mistake made regarding the objective conditions of the personal grounds for exclusion of punishment as established for certain crimes will eliminate the offender’s criminal responsibility. However, these authors do not make categorical distinctions among the personal grounds for exclusion of punishment.

Lastly, still other authors have used separative theory to argue that distinctions should be made among the personal grounds for exclusion of punishment. Accordingly, if a personal ground for exclusion of punishment exclusively or predominantly serves the state’s policies on punishment, then the completely objective situation will be taken into account in terms how to apply these grounds, and the error is insignificant regarding the circumstances of these grounds.

Conversely, if these grounds primarily require consideration of the act’s motivation, similar to a state of necessity or decreased level of culpability of the crime, one must consider the what the offender envisaged.

Making such distinctions appears to be quite correct. However, the conclusions to be drawn from this distinction should be compatible with the letter and systematics of the law. 

This study has reached the opinion that if a personal ground for exclusion of punishment exclusively or predominantly serves the state’s policies on crime and punishment, attributing a result to an error in the objective conditions is impossible, due to such a reason being unable to affect one’s culpability regarding an act. On the other hand, if the hypothetical formation of the offender’s motivation in committing an act was taken into account when the legislator established the personal grounds for exclusion of punishment, then the need exists to think differently. In such cases, the legislator accepts that the weight of the lack of judgment regarding normative social values in the face of the act has not reached a level worthy of punishment, which is reflected in law as a personal ground for exclusion of punishment regarding the crime in question.

For example, in cases falling within the scope of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) Art. 283/3, a legislator assumes that the conflict between compliance with the norm and protecting a relative from danger would shape the offender’s motivation to act. Because this assumption is based on the offender’s motivation to act, one should assumed that the mistake made regarding the objective conditions of such personal grounds for exclusion of punishment also shaped the motivation to act. Therefore, an offender who has made a mistake regarding the objective conditions of a personal ground for exclusion of punishment should also benefit from this mistake.

When looking at the TPC, an error in the objective conditions of personal grounds for exclusion of punishment is not seen to be regulated under any clear norm. When looking at the TPC systematically, this is understood to be an unconscious gap in the law. However, a legislator has regulated errors regarding the objective conditions of the reasons that remove or reduce culpability in TPC Art. 30/3. In this context, this study has the opinion that TPC Art. 30/3 should be applied by analogy in favor of the offender in terms of an error regarding the objective conditions of personal impunity in the narrow sense, which also affects culpability in terms of nature. Accordingly, an offender who makes an inevitable error regarding the objective conditions of personal grounds for exclusion of punishment should benefit from this mistake in accordance with the provision in TPC Art. 30/3. 


PDF View

References

  • Akbulut B, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (9. Baskı, Adalet 2022). google scholar
  • Antolisei F, Manuale di diritto penale, Parte generale, A cura di Luigi Conti (16. Edz, Giuffre 2003). google scholar
  • Artuk M E, Gökcen A, Alşahin M E ve Çakır K, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (16. Baskı, Adalet 2022). google scholar
  • Arzt G, Weber U, Heinrich B und Hilgendorf E, Strafrecht Besonderer Teil (Ernst und Werner 2009). google scholar
  • Baumann J, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (7. Auflage, Verlag Ernst und Werner 1975). google scholar
  • Baumann J, Weber U und Mitsch W, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (11. Auflage, Ernst und Werner 2003). google scholar
  • Baytaz A B, Kanunilik İlkesi Bağlamında Ceza ve Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda Yorum (Oniki Levha 2018). google scholar
  • Bekar E, Objektif Cezalandırılabilme Koşulları ve Bu Koşullar Bağlamında Türk Ceza Kanunu’nda Yer Alan Suçlar (Oniki Levha 2018). google scholar
  • Bekar E, Türk ve Amerikan Ceza Hukukunda Zorunluluk Hali (Seçkin 2013). google scholar
  • Bettiol G, Diritto penale, Parte generale (5. Edz, G Priulla 1962). google scholar
  • Bulut E, ‘Şahsi Cezasızlık Sebepleri’ (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü 2021). google scholar
  • Cadoppi A e Veneziani P, Elemeni di diritto penale, Parte generale (7. Edz, CEDAM 2018). google scholar
  • Canestrari S, Cornacchia L e De Simone G, Manuale di diritto penale, Parte generale (Il Mulino 2007). google scholar
  • Canpolat C, Kusur İlkesi Işığında Mazeret Nedeni Olarak Zorlayıcı Cebir (Seçkin 2016). google scholar
  • Centel N, Zafer H ve Çakmut Ö, Türk Ceza Hukukuna Giriş (11. Bası, Beta 2020). google scholar
  • Cocco G, ‘II fondamento e i limiti dei rapporti familiari come causa di non punibilita o di perseguibilita a querela di parte’, in Giovanni ludica e Ugo Carnevali (edz), Responsabilitâ civile e previdenza (Giuffre, 2015) 1048-1062. google scholar
  • De Marsico A, Delitti contro il patrimonio (E Jovene 1951). google scholar
  • De Marsico A, Diritto penale, Parte generale (2. Edz, E Jovene 1969). google scholar
  • Değirmenci O, ‘Ceza Hukukunda Yanılma Kavramı ve Hukuka Uygunluk Nedenlerinde Yanılma’ [2014] TBBD (110), 129-188. google scholar
  • Demirbaş T, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (15. Bası, Seçkin 2020). google scholar
  • Erem F, Ümanist Doktrin Açısından Türk Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (10. Baskı, Sevinç 1973). google scholar
  • Ersoy U, Ceza Hukukunda Objektif Cezalandırılabilme Şartları (Adalet 2015). google scholar
  • Exner T, ‘Kompendium der strafrechtlichen Irrtumslehre’ [2009] Zeitschrift für das Juristische Studium (5) 516-527. google scholar
  • Fiandaca G e Musco E, Diritto penale, Parte generale (Zanichelli 1990). google scholar
  • Fiore C e Fiore S, Diritto penale, Parte generale (6. Edz, UTET 2020). google scholar
  • Fischer T, Strafgesetzbuch und Nebengesetze Band 10 (58. Auflage, C H Beck 2011). google scholar
  • Frosali RA, Sistema penale italiano (UTET 1958). google scholar
  • Gedik D, ‘Ceza Hukukunda Şahsi Cezasızlık Sebepleri’ [2006] Yargıtay Dergisi 32(4) 553-581. google scholar
  • Gropp W, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (3. Auflage, Springer 2005). google scholar
  • Grosso CF, L’errore sulle scriminanti (Giuffre 1961). google scholar
  • Gülşen R, ‘Malvarlığına Karşı Suçlar Açısından Akrabalık Bağının Etkisi (TCK m 167)’ in: Mahmut Koca (Ed), Prof Dr Mehmet Emin Artuk’a Armağan (Seçkin 2020) 487-534. google scholar
  • Güngör D, Ceza Hukukunda Fiil Üzerinde Hata (Yetkin 2007). google scholar
  • Hafızoğulları Z ve Özen M, Türk Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (12. Bası, US-A 2019). google scholar
  • Hakeri H, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (27. Baskı, Adalet 2022). google scholar
  • Heinrich B, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (3. Auflage, Kohlhammer 2012). google scholar
  • Heintschel-Heinegg B, Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, Band 1 (3. Auflage, C H Beck 2017). google scholar
  • Horn E, ‘Zum Irrtum beim Ehegattendiebstahl’ [1971] MDR (1) 8-11. google scholar
  • İçel K, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (Yenilenmiş Bası, Beta 2016). google scholar
  • Jakobs G, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (2. Auflage, Walter de Gruyter 1991). google scholar
  • Jescheck H H und Weigend T, Lehrbuch des Strafrecht (5. Auflage, Duncker & Humblot, 1996). google scholar
  • Kangal Z T, ‘Kişisel Cezasızlık Nedenleri ve Cezayı Kaldıran veya Azaltan Kişisel Nedenler’ [2011] Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Kazancı Hakemli Hukuk Dergisi 7(85-86) 38-60. google scholar
  • Kangal Z T, Ceza Hukukunda Zorunluluk Durumu (Seçkin 2010). google scholar
  • Kindhauser U, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil(6. Auflage, Nomos 2013). google scholar
  • Kitapçıoğlu Yüksel T, Özgü Suç (Oniki Levha 2021). google scholar
  • Koca M ve Üzülmez İ, Türk Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (15. Baskı, Seçkin 2022). google scholar
  • Kohlhaas M, ‘Der Irrtum über das Vorliegen oder Nichtvorliegen von persönlichen StrafausschlieBungsgründen’ [1958] ZStW (70) 217-226. google scholar
  • Kühl K, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (7. Auflage, Franz Fahlen 2012). google scholar
  • Lackner K und Maasen H, Strafgesetzbuch (5. Auflage, C H Beck 1969). google scholar
  • Lackner K und Maasen H, Strafgesetzbuch (7. Auflage, C H Beck 1972). google scholar
  • Mantovani F, Diritto penale, Parte generale (7. Edz, CEDAM 2011). google scholar
  • Manzini V, Trattato di diritto penale italiano, Vol.IX: Delitti contro il patrimonio, A cura del Pietro Nuvolone (5. Edz, UTET 1986). google scholar
  • Marinucci G, Dolcini E e Gatta G L, Manuale di diritto penale, Parte generale (9. Edz, Giuffre 2020). google scholar
  • Maurach R, Schroeder F C und Maiwald M, Strafrecht Besonderer Teil, Teil Band 2, straftaten gegen Geimenschaftwerte (10. Auflage, CF Müller 2012). google scholar
  • Meraklı S, ‘Mazeret Sebeplerinin Türk Ceza Kanunu Bakımından Değerlendirilmesi’ [2010] Ceza Hukuku Dergisi 5(12) 261-302. google scholar
  • Meraklı S, Ceza Hukukunda Kusur (Seçkin 2017). google scholar
  • Nuvolone P, Il sistema del diritto penale (2. Edz, CEDAM 1982). google scholar
  • Otto H, Grundkurs Strafrecht Allgemeine Strafrechtslehre (7. Auflage, De Gruyter Recht 2004). google scholar
  • Ozansü MC, Ceza Hukukunda Kasttan Doğan Sübjektif Sorumluluk (Seçkin 2007). google scholar
  • Önder A, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler Cilt II-III (Beta 1992). google scholar
  • Özbek V Ö, Doğan K ve Bacaksız P, Türk Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (13. Bası, Seçkin 2022). google scholar
  • Özen M, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (5. Baskı, Adalet 2022). google scholar
  • Özgenç İ, Türk Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (18. Bası, Seçkin 2022). google scholar
  • Öztürk B ve Erdem M R, Uygulamalı Ceza Hukuku ve Güvenlik Tedbirleri Hukuku (22. Baskı, Seçkin 2022). google scholar
  • Padovani T, Diritto Penale (4. Edz, Giuffre 1998). google scholar
  • Palazzo F, Corso di diritto penale, Parte generale (8. Edz, G Giappichelli 2021). google scholar
  • Pecorella G, ‘Semantica versus ideologie: L’errore sulle cd cause di esclusione della pena’, [2019] Archivio Penale 2019(2) 1-23. google scholar
  • Pisapia GD, ‘I rapporti di famiglia come causa di non punibilita’ in: Studi di diritto penale (CEDAM 1956) 145-181. google scholar
  • Pulitano D, Diritto penale (9. Edz, G Giappichelli 2021). google scholar
  • Ramacci F, Corso di dirito penale (A cura di Roberto Guerrini) (5. Edz, G Giappichelli 2013). google scholar
  • Ranieri S, Manuale di diritto penale, Parte generale (3. Edz, CEDAM 1956). google scholar
  • Raviş S, ‘Türk Ceza Hukukunda Şahsi Cezasızlık Sebepleri’ (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü 2022). google scholar
  • Rengier R, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (4. Auflage, C H Beck 2012). google scholar
  • Romano B, Diritto penale, Parte generale (4 Edz, Giuffre 2020). google scholar
  • Roxin C, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil Band I (4. Auflage, C H Beck 2006). google scholar
  • Santaniello G e Maruotti L, Manuale di diritto penale, Parte generale (Giuffre 1990). google scholar
  • Schmidt R, Strafrecht - Allgemeiner Teil (22. Auflage, RS 2021). google scholar
  • Schönke A, Schröder H, Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar(27. Auflage, C H Beck 2006). google scholar
  • Soyaslan D, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (10. Bası, Yetkin 2022). google scholar
  • Sözüer A, ‘Yeni Türk Ceza Kanunu Uygulamasında Sorular Cevaplar’ [2006] HPD (6) 227-237. google scholar
  • Stree W, ‘Der Irrtum des Taters über die Angehörigeneinschaft seines Opfers’ [1962] FamRZ 55-60. google scholar
  • Stree W, ‘Begünstigung, Strafvereitelung und Hehlerei’ [1976] Juristische Schulung Zeitschrift für Studium und Ausbildung 16 (3) 137-145. google scholar
  • Tezcan D, Erdem M R ve Önok R M, Teorik ve Pratik Ceza Özel Hukuku (20. Bası, Seçkin 2022). google scholar
  • Toroslu N ve Toroslu H, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (26. Bası, Savaş 2021). google scholar
  • Tulay ME, Ceza Hukukunda Şahısta veya Konuda Hata (Adalet 2022). google scholar
  • Tunç K, Ceza Hukukunda Kastı Engelleyen Hata (Adalet 2021). google scholar
  • Vassalli G, ‘Cause di non punibilita’, Enciclopedia del diritto, Vol VI (Giuffre 1960) 609-636. google scholar
  • Welzel H, Das Deutsche Strafrecht (4. Auflage, Walter de Gruyter 1954). google scholar
  • Wessels J, Beulke W und Satzger H, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (43. Auflage, C F Müller 2019). google scholar
  • Zafer H, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (7. Baskı, Beta 2019). google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Sarıtaş, E., & Algan Canseven, H. (2023). An Error in the Objective Conditions of Personal Grounds for Exclusion of Punishment. Journal of Penal Law and Criminology, 11(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2022-1215273


AMA

Sarıtaş E, Algan Canseven H. An Error in the Objective Conditions of Personal Grounds for Exclusion of Punishment. Journal of Penal Law and Criminology. 2023;11(1):1-25. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2022-1215273


ABNT

Sarıtaş, E.; Algan Canseven, H. An Error in the Objective Conditions of Personal Grounds for Exclusion of Punishment. Journal of Penal Law and Criminology, [Publisher Location], v. 11, n. 1, p. 1-25, 2023.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Sarıtaş, Erkan, and Hazal Algan Canseven. 2023. “An Error in the Objective Conditions of Personal Grounds for Exclusion of Punishment.” Journal of Penal Law and Criminology 11, no. 1: 1-25. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2022-1215273


Chicago: Humanities Style

Sarıtaş, Erkan, and Hazal Algan Canseven. “An Error in the Objective Conditions of Personal Grounds for Exclusion of Punishment.” Journal of Penal Law and Criminology 11, no. 1 (May. 2024): 1-25. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2022-1215273


Harvard: Australian Style

Sarıtaş, E & Algan Canseven, H 2023, 'An Error in the Objective Conditions of Personal Grounds for Exclusion of Punishment', Journal of Penal Law and Criminology, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1-25, viewed 20 May. 2024, https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2022-1215273


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Sarıtaş, E. and Algan Canseven, H. (2023) ‘An Error in the Objective Conditions of Personal Grounds for Exclusion of Punishment’, Journal of Penal Law and Criminology, 11(1), pp. 1-25. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2022-1215273 (20 May. 2024).


MLA

Sarıtaş, Erkan, and Hazal Algan Canseven. “An Error in the Objective Conditions of Personal Grounds for Exclusion of Punishment.” Journal of Penal Law and Criminology, vol. 11, no. 1, 2023, pp. 1-25. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2022-1215273


Vancouver

Sarıtaş E, Algan Canseven H. An Error in the Objective Conditions of Personal Grounds for Exclusion of Punishment. Journal of Penal Law and Criminology [Internet]. 20 May. 2024 [cited 20 May. 2024];11(1):1-25. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2022-1215273 doi: 10.26650/JPLC2022-1215273


ISNAD

Sarıtaş, Erkan - Algan Canseven, Hazal. “An Error in the Objective Conditions of Personal Grounds for Exclusion of Punishment”. Journal of Penal Law and Criminology 11/1 (May. 2024): 1-25. https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2022-1215273



TIMELINE


Submitted06.12.2022
Accepted22.05.2023
Published Online15.06.2023

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.