Olası Kastla Suça Teşebbüs Nedeniyle Ceza Sorumluluğunun Kabul Edilebilirliği
Bekir BoğaTeşebbüs, bir suçun icra hareketlerine başlanmasına rağmen suçun tamamlanamadığı hallerde cezalandırmayı sağlayan ve bu suretle ceza sorumluluğu alanını genişleten bir müessesedir. Teşebbüs nedeniyle ceza sorumluluğu ancak failin tipik eylem bakımından kasten hareket ettiği durumlarda gündeme gelebilir. Türk Ceza Kanunun 35. maddesinde bu durum açıkça belirtilmektedir. Her ne kadar 35. maddede bir belirleme söz konusu değilse de Türk Hukukunda, öğretide ve Yargıtay kararlarında olası kastla hareket edilen hallerde suç teşebbüsten ötürü ceza sorumluluğu tesis edilemeyeceği kabul edilmektedir. Bu nedenle Türk Ceza Hukukunda genellikle “olası kast netice ile belirlenir” kuralı kabul edilmektedir. Böylelikle olası kastın varlığı teorik anlamda olmasa da pratik anlamda neticenin gerçekleşmesi şartına bağlanmaktadır. Bu görüşün dayandığı neden olası kastla suça teşebbüsün kabul edilmesi halinde ceza sorumluluğu alanının katlanılmaz bir şekilde genişlemesi endişesidir. Buna karşılık öğretide diğer bir görüş teşebbüs bakımından olası kast ile doğrudan kast arasında bir fark bulunmadığını bu nedenle olası kastla suça teşebbüsün mümkün olduğunu kabul etmektedir. Alman Ceza Hukuku öğretisinde ise olası kastla suça teşebbüsün mümkün olduğuna ilişkin görüş birliğinin olduğu söylenebilir. Alman öğretisinde olası kastın varlığı neticenin gerçekleşmesinden bağımsız olarak tespit edilmektedir. Bu çalışmada Alman Hukukundaki görüşler ve uygulama dikkate alınarak olası kastla suça teşebbüsün kabul edilmesi durumunda cezalandırmaya karşı olan yazarların endişelerinin haklı olup olmadığı incelenmektedir.
Acceptability of The Criminal Liability because of Criminal Attempt with Dolus Eventualis
Bekir BoğaCriminal liability for attempt to commit is an institution that provides punishment to the perpetrators of an unfinished crime despite what has begun to be committed; thus, it expands the range of criminal liability. The punishment because due to an attempt is possible if only the perpetrator acts with the intention of performing any offense. Article 35 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) clearly explains the situation. Although Article 35 of the TPC does not determine that the intention must be the direct intention, the Turkish supreme court (Yargıtay), and criminal law doctrine accept that there is no criminal liability for attempt with conditioanal intent. For this reason, the rule that conditional intent is determined according to the result of the offence is mostly valid in Turkish criminal law. Thus, the existence of a conditional intent is conditioned on realizing the result in a practical but not theoretical sense. The background of this opinion is the concern that the range of criminal liability could be expanded intolerably. However, a different opinion in Turkish criminal law doctrine states that there is no difference between direct intent and conditional intent regarding the punishment of a criminal attempt. For this reason, according to the opinion, criminal liability is possible due to a criminal attempt with conditional intent. The conditional intent is determined independently from the result of crime according to German doctrine. In this work, if we accept the criminal liability for attempt with conditional intent, whether the concern to expand the range of criminal liability for attempt with conditional intent is true is examined by considering practices and theories of German Law.
Currently, criminal law aims to prevent risks regarding benefits protected by law before occurring result of an offence. Thus, we can say that punishment for the risks of murder is more important than punishment for murder. Because there is a risk of realizing a crime in the criminal attempt, law punishes the attempt. The Turkish Penal Code (TPC) accepts criminal liability for attempt in Article 35. The criminal attempt is punishable only if the perpetrator acts with intent. However, two forms of intent exist in the TPC. In cases of direct intent, the perpetrator aims to commit the offence or knows absolutely that his act will cause to commit the offence. However, in cases of conditional intent, the perpetrator foresees the possibility of committing the offence. Therefore, the perpetrator knows the risk of committing the offence, but nevertheless, he or she acts. Although Article 35 of the TPC does not determine that the intention must be the direct intention, The Turkish supreme court (Yargıtay), and criminal law doctrine accept that there is no criminal liability for attempt with conditional intent. For this reason, the rule that the conditional intent is determined according to the result of the offence is mostly valid in Turkish criminal law. Thus, the existence of conditional intent is conditioned on realizing the result in a practical but not theoretical sense. The background of this opinion is the concern that the range of criminal liability could be expanded intolerably. However, a different opinion in Turkish Criminal Law doctrine states that there is no difference between direct intention and conditional intent regarding the punishment of a criminal attempt.
There are two important theories regarding conditional intent in German law doctrine. While risk theories determine the conditional intent according to the realized risk by the perpetrator, decision theories investigate the perpetrator’s decision, which is contrary to interests protected by law. Both parties concure with the opinion that criminal liability for attempt with conditional intent is possible. Thus there is no theoretical obstacle criminal liability for attempt with conditional intent. However, some authors demand to limit the criminal liability for this attempt. First, an opinion refuses criminal liability in cases of impossible attempts with conditional intent. This view is compatible with Turkish law because in Turkish law, impossible attempts cannot be punished. On the one hand, according to an opinion, abandonment of an attempt with conditional intent must have conditions differ from those of direct intent. The German Federal Court of Justice easily decides that in some cases, an attempt has been abonded. However, abandonment of an attempt is not voluntary in such cases; for this reason, this approach is criticized in German teaching. Finally, the dolus alternativus can limit criminal liability for attempt with conditional intent. Discussions on the dolus alternativus should, in our opinion, be further considered in Turkish law. Because an exception is stipulated in the Turkish penal code in terms of provisions for several offenses committed by one act (TPC art. 43 par. 3), and this exception brings practical importance to this discussion.
If the perpetrator knowingly attacks a legally protected interest such as life, the conditional intent is not ambiguous. In this case, punishment for bodily harm rather than murder is unreasonable. Problems in accepting criminal liability for attempt with conditional intent can be limited, but no punishment for such an attempt causes unsolvable problems. This work aims to destroy the worry of criminal liability for attempt with conditional intent. For this purpose, we present solutions in German law, at the same time criticizing, some solutions that have constituted a system for criminal liability for attempt with conditional intent.
