Özet:

Historically, either the institution of attempt or the institution of voluntary abandonment is quite new. It can not be said that these terms have thrown too far back in origin. However, it can not be ignored that the perpetrator can not complete the movements he has made or abandonment the crime he wants to commit. Well in this case, how will the responsibility of the perpetrator, is weakened the decision of commit a crime or to abandon on various occasions for the crime for which meant to be treated, be determined? The answer to this question is different in the Turkish Criminal Code numbered 765 and differently in the Turkish Criminal Code numbered 5237. Furthermore, the Turkish Criminal Code numbered 5237 gived a place the basic voluntary abandonment of Article 36, reserved a separate space for voluntary abandonment in jointly committed offenses in Article 41 as well. These arrangements have become the present day with the contributions of many theories. Particularly here, I would like to express the golden bridge theory, which is one of the crime policy theories and states that a gold bridge must be presented to perpetrator for the return of the iter criminis. This article is seeking answers on the conditions under which voluntary abandonment is possible, the question of what different opinions say on this issue and how they reflect on judicial decisions

Anahtar Kelimeler: