Citation Number
3
Views
70
Downloands
21
İradi olarak yapılan fiil ile kastedilenin ötesinde gerçekleşen ağır ya da başka netice arasında nedensellik bağının bulunmasının, failin sorumluluğu için yeterli gören anlayışa objektif sorumluluk adı verilmektedir. İlkel ceza hukuku kalıntısı olarak görülen objektif sorumluluk anlayışının yerine “kusursuz suç ve ceza olmaz” ilkesine uygun olarak kanunda neticesi sebebiyle ağırlaşmış suç tanımına yer verilmiştir. TCK’nın 23. maddesinde yer verilen tanıma göre, kastedilenden daha ağır veya başka bir neticenin oluşumuna sebebiyet vermesi halinde, kişinin bundan dolayı sorumlu tutulabilmesi için bu netice bakımından en azından taksirle hareket etmesi gerekmektedir. TCK’nın 87/4. maddesinde düzenlenen kasten yaralama sonucu ölüme neden olma suçu tipik bir neticesi sebebiyle ağırlaşmış suçtur. Fail yaralama kastıyla hareket eder ancak istemediği halde ölüm sonucu meydana gelir. İşte failin, yaralama şeklindeki birinci netice yanında ikinci netice olarak ortaya çıkan ölüm sonucundan sorumlu tutulabilmesi için en azından taksir ile hareket etmesi gerekir. Ölüm neticesinin ortaya çıkmasında taksir derecesinde dahi kusuru bulunmuyorsa sadece kasten yaralama suçundan sorumluluğuna gidilecektir.
The existence of a causal connection between the fact and the intention that occurs beyond the intention or other result is called objective responsibility to the understanding that is sufficient for the responsibility of the act. Instead of the objective perception of liability, which is considered as the remainder of the primary criminal law, the definition of the criminal offence due to the result in the law is placed in accordance with the principle of "uncomplete crime and no punishment". According to the recognition provided for in Article 23 of the TCK, if it causes the formation of a more severe or other result than intended, the person must act at least in terms of this result in order to be liable for this result. of the TCK 87/4. The intentional injury in the article is a crime that has caused death due to a typical result. Fail acts intentionally in wound but does not want to result in death. This is why the criminal must act at least with a taxation so that he can be held responsible for the result of death that arises as a second result along with the first result in the form of injury. If there is no defect in the result of death, it will only be liable for the deliberately injured crime.
The approach which considers it sufficient for the responsibility of the offender if there exists a causal relation between the intentional act with the more serious or other consequence taking place beyond the intent is called objective responsibility. Instead of the objective responsibility approach which is considered as a residue of primitive penal law, the law includes the definition of aggravation of an offence due to its consequence in line with the principle “nullum crimen sine culpa”. According to the definition in article 23 of Turkish Criminal Code; in order to keep a person responsible from an act which can be considered as matter of aggravation or other consequence beyond the intended, at least should have acted with negligence. The Offence of Intentional Injury Resulting with Death of a Person as imposed in art. 87/4 of TCC is a typical offence aggravated due to a consequence. The offender acts with an intention for injury, however the act results with death despite not being intended. Here, the offender must act at least with negligence in order to be responsible for the consequence of death arising as a secondary consequence besides the first consequence which is injury. If the offender has no faults in the consequence of death, even at the level of negligence, only the responsibility for intentional injury will be applicable.
Field : Hukuk
Journal Type : Ulusal
Article Detail 
Citation Owners
Similar Articles
Download PDF
Journal Information
Listen Paper
Print This Page
Share
Mendeley
