37 Of Our Criminal Code. Article 1. in the paragraph, it is organized as a form of participation. According to this paragraph,
“each of the persons who perform the act together contained in the legal definition of the crime shall be responsible as the perpetrator”.

As can be understood from the paragraph, joint failure is the joint realization of the verb contained in the legal definition by more than one person. All common perpetrators must have a decision to commit crimes together and a common verb dominance. Only in this case can the act committed be attributed to each of the common perpetrators. Establishing dominance over the processing of the verb constitutes the objective element of joint guilt, and the decision to commit a joint crime is the subjective element.
Since the act committed in a joint perpetrator is attributed to each joint perpetrator, each of them is held responsible for the crime committed as the perpetrator. However, in some types of crime, the legislator considers the crime to be committed by more than one person as a qualified state (TCK art. 102/3-d, 103/3-a, 106/2-c, 109/3-b, 119/1-c, 149/1-c, 265/3). In the doctrine, some authors criticize this situation and state that the same action punished by being a co-perpetrator is punished for the second time because it was committed by more than one person and is contrary to the principle of “non bis in idem”. According to the authors, such regulations are from the law
it should be considered as cases that do not reach the level of co-perpetrator, although it should be removed or remain, but should not be applied in the form of co-perpetrator. But regulations regarding the commission of a crime by more than one person are considered co-perpetrators in doctrine and practice. It should be noted that the commission of a crime with more than one person affects the unfair content of the act due to the convenience of the commission of the crime. This is especially true in acts dealing with the victim, where there is coercive force, where there is a break in the victim’s resistance. If the crimes specified in the Istanbul Convention are committed together by two or more people it imposes its provision as a qualified State on the party countries. Therefore, such an arrangement is in place because it is in the law, affects the content of injustice and is an international obligation. But what we want to criticize is that such definitions of the above mentioned crimes do not cause other violent crimes. For example, this is why such an arrangement is not included in crimes such as deliberate wounding, torture, torture. Our law needs to be reviewed in this sense.

Bir cevap yazın

E-posta hesabınız yayımlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir