Journals / Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 1

THE CHALLENGES IN QUALIFYING THE CONDUCT IN CONCRETE CASES AS COMMISSION OR OMISSION

İCRAİ VEYA İHMALİ OLARAK SOMUT OLAYDA DAVRANIŞIN GERÇEKLEŞTİRİLİŞ BİÇİMİNİN TESPİTİ MESELESİ

Pages
397–449
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Only these issuesremain in the background when two forms of conduct as commission andomission appears in the natural sense.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The harm that are occurred by active conduct may be also brought out bypassive conduct, omission, of those who have legal duty to act.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In some cases,these two forms of conduct exist simultaneously.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Only these issuesremain in the background when two forms of conduct as commission andomission appears in the natural sense.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:İhmal · icra · davranış

Abstract

The harm that are occurred by active conduct may be also brought out bypassive conduct, omission, of those who have legal duty to act. In some cases,these two forms of conduct exist simultaneously. This is the case where a motherleaves her newborn to a secluded place and the baby dies or the physician shutsoff the reanimator and the patient dies. Both mother and physician have a legalduty to act and both performed the active conduct as well. In such cases, twoforms of conduct are come into being and lead to death. Consequently, thequestion on which form of conduct criminal liability should be based uponarises. That is to say, mother or physician should be punished due to the killingby commission or omission remains debatable. For such cases, various criteriahave been applied by the case law and doctrine of German criminal law. In thisstudy, these are put across by classifying as “reality” and “assessment”theories.The main approach of this study is not only relying on reality for thesolution; but after the retaining of the reality, it is necessary to make anassessment, which refers to the interpretation of norms. Because, in such cases,both forms of conduct stand at an equal distance to the norms. Starting from thispoint of view, the uniformity of conduct, the coexistence of recklessness crimeswith omission, the relationship of the previous and the next action with thepreexisting dangerous behavior and the crime of abandonment are discussed.All of our analysis has shown that a single criterion to be developedcannot solve the cases in which both forms of conduct occur, and that thesolution can be put forward according to the background of the case. Because,each of these cases contains various issues of the crime theory. Only these issuesremain in the background when two forms of conduct as commission andomission appears in the natural sense.

Özet

İcrai davranışla meydana getirilebilecek netice, “garantörlük” olarak

🔖

Cite This Article

ERBAŞ, R. (2019). THE CHALLENGES IN QUALIFYING THE CONDUCT IN CONCRETE CASES AS COMMISSION OR OMISSION. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 1, 397–449. https://ajindex.com/articles/159847

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Alacakaptan, Uğur: Suçun Unsurları, Ankara, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları No: 372, Sevinç Matbaası, 1975.
  2. Artuk, M. Emin/Gökcen, Ahmet/Alşahin, M. Emin/Çakır, Kerim: Ceza Hukuku Özel Hükümler, 16. bs., Ankara, Adalet, 2017.
  3. Artuk, M. Emin/Yenidünya, A. Caner: “Ötenazi”, in Hukuki ve Etik Boyutuyla Ötenazi, Yay. Haz. Nur Centel, İstanbul, On İki Levha, 2011, s. 107-140.
  4. Avcı, Mustafa/Yerdelen, Erdal: “Karar İncelemesi - Garantörsel İhmali Suçta İhmali ve İcrai Davranış Ayırmı”, GÜHFD, Cilt: 19, Sayı: 1, 2015, s.163-190.
  5. Baumann, Jürgen/Weber, Ulrich/Mitsch, Wolgang: Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil Lehrbuch, 11. bs., Bielefeld, Verlag Ernst und Werner Gieseking, 2003.
  6. Brammsen, Joerg: “Tun und Unterlassen? Die Bestimmung der Strafrechtlichen Verhaltensformen”, GA, Cilt: 149, Sayı: 4, 2002, s. 193-213.
  7. Demirbaş, Timur: Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler, 13. bs., Ankara, Seçkin, 2018.
  8. Doğan, Koray, “Tehlike Suçu ile Zarar Suçu Arasındaki Suçların İçtimaı Sorunu”, TAAD, Cilt: 5, Sayı: 16, Ocak 2014, s. 179-208.
  9. Dönmezer, Sulhi: “İhmal Suretiyle İcra Suçları”, İÜHFM, Cilt: 9, Sayı: 3-4, 1944, s.473-494.
  10. Dönmezer, Sulhi/Erman, Sahir: Nazarî ve Tatbikî Ceza Hukuku, Cilt: II, 10. bs., İstanbul, Beta, 1994.
  11. Ebert, Udo: Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 3. tamamıyla yeniden çalışılmış bs., Heidelberg, C.F. Müller Verlag, 2001.
  12. Erbaş, Rahime: Türk Ceza Kanunu’nda Görünüşte İhmali Suçlarda Garantörlük, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, İstanbul, 2019.
  13. Eser, Albin/Perron, Walter/Sternberg-Lieben, Detlev/Eisele, Jörg/Bosch, Nikolaus/Hecker, Bernd/Kinzig, Jörg/Schuster, Frank/Weißer, Bettina (Yay. Haz.): Schönke/Schröder Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar, 29. bs., Münih, Verlag C.H. Beck, 2014, (çevrimiçi) https://beck-online.beck.de/, (Erişim Tarihi: 12.06.2017), (Atıf şekli: Yazar adı, S/S (29), bölüm, kn.). Engisch, Karl: Die Kausalität als Merkmal der strafrechtlichen Tatbestände, Tübingen, Verlag von J.C.B. Mohr, 1931.
  14. Engisch, Karl: “Tun und Unterlassen”, Festschrift Für Wilhelm Gallas, Yay. Haz. Karl Lackner/Heinz Leferenz/Eberhard Schmidt/Jürgen Welp/Ernst A. Wolff, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 1973, s. 163-196.
  15. Geilen, Gerd: “Neue juristisch- medizinische Grenzprobleme”, JZ, Cilt: 23, No: 5-6, 1968, s. 145-152.
  16. Gössel, Karl Heinz “Zur Lehre vom Unterlassungsdelikt”, ZStW, Cilt:96, Sayı:2, 1984, s. 321-335.
  17. Graf, Jürgen-Peter (Yay. Haz.), Beck'scher Online Kommentar OWiG, 20. bs., Münih, Verlag C.H. Beck, 2018, (çevrimiçi) https: