Joint Perpetrator In Criminal Law
It is regulated as a form of participation in paragraph 1 of Article 37 of our Criminal Code. According to this paragraph, “each of the persons who jointly perform the act included in the legal definition of the offence shall be liable as the perpetrator”.
As it is understood from the paragraph, joint perpetrator means that the act included in the legal definition is committed by more than one person the joint commission of an offence. Decision to commit an offence together and joint control of the joint act in all joint perpetrators must be present. Only in this case, the act committed can be attributed to each of the joint perpetrators. The act dominance over the commission of an offence constitutes the objective element of joint criminality, and the decision to commit an offence together constitutes the objective element of joint criminality. constitutes the subjective element.
Since the act committed in joint perpetratorship is attributed to each joint perpetrator, each of them is responsible for the offence committed as a perpetrator. is held responsible for the offence. However, in some types of offences, the legislator has determined that the offence is committed by more than one person. (TPC Art. 102/3-d, 103/3-a, 106/2-c, 109/3-b, 119/1-c, 149/1-c, 265/3). Some authors in the doctrine criticise this situation and argue that the same act is penalised a second time because it is committed by more than one person and non bis in idem principle. According to the authors, such regulations are derived from the law or, if it is to remain, not to be applied in the form of co-perpetrators, and not to be applied in the form of co-perpetrators who do not reach the level of co-perpetrators. should be accepted as circumstances.
However, in relation to the offence committed by more than one person arrangements are accepted as co-perpetrators in doctrine and practice. It should be noted that committing the offence with more than one person facilitates the committing of the offence and therefore renders the act unjust affects its content. This is particularly the case in acts involving the victim, where coercive force is involved. in cases where the resistance of the victim has been broken. Istanbul The Convention also stipulates that the offences specified in the Convention must be committed by two or more persons together It imposes the obligation on the contracting parties to foresee it as a qualifying circumstance.
Therefore, such a regulation It is appropriate because it is in the law, it affects the content of injustice and it is an international obligation. of the above-mentioned offences. However, what we would like to criticise is that this kind of determinations do not apply to other violent offences. For example, intentional injury, cruelty, torture why such an arrangement is not included in such offences. Our law should be reviewed in this sense required.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.