Intentional Killing with the Motive of Blood Feud - Ümraniye Criminal Lawyer

Intentional Killing with the Motive of Blood Feud - Ümraniye Criminal Lawyer Intentional killing with the motive of blood feud is regulated under the Turkish Penal Code as one of the aggravated forms of intentional killing. This aggravated form, regulated under Article 82/1-j of the Turkish Penal Code, concerns a second killing committed after an initial killing with a motive of revenge and blood feud. Determining whether the offence of intentional killing with the motive of blood feud has occurred does not depend solely on the existence of two separate killings. The motive of the offender, the relationship between the first and second killings, the period of time between the incidents and the purpose pursued by the offender when committing the act must all be assessed together. At this point, there are different assessments by the Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation and the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation concerning the conditions required for intentional killing with the motive of blood feud. Therefore, when such a criminal case is assessed within the scope of an Ümraniye criminal lawyer, Istanbul criminal lawyer, Ataşehir criminal lawyer, Çekmeköy criminal lawyer or serious crimes lawyer, all circumstances of the incident and the offender's motive should be examined in detail. What Is the Offence of Intentional Killing with the Motive of Blood Feud? Intentional killing with the motive of blood feud is not an independently defined offence under the Turkish Penal Code but an aggravated form of intentional killing. The offence is regulated under Article 82/1-j of the Turkish Penal Code. For intentional killing with the motive of blood feud to arise, there must have been a previous completed killing followed by a second killing, and the second act must have been committed with the motive of blood feud. However, the mere existence of a connection between the two killings is not sufficient. Determining whether the offender acted specifically with a sense of revenge and an awareness of fulfilling a perceived duty is important in the legal classification of the offence. What Does the Motive of Blood Feud Mean? The motive of blood feud refers to acting with the intention of retaliating for a previous killing and killing another person in response to that event. The offender's purpose in such a case is not merely to relieve immediate anger. For the motive of blood feud, it is important that the offender acts with a desire for revenge arising from the previous killing and regards the act as a duty that must be fulfilled. This characteristic is also important in distinguishing killing with the motive of blood feud from killing committed under unjust provocation. What Are the Conditions of Intentional Killing with the Motive of Blood Feud? According to the approach of the Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation described in the source document, several conditions are relevant for recognising intentional killing with the motive of blood feud. Accordingly: The first killing must have been completed. For purposes of the offence, it does not matter whether the first killing was committed intentionally, negligently or through a combination of intent and negligence. The offender must kill the perpetrator of the previous offence or a person belonging to that perpetrator's group or family with a sense of revenge and an awareness of fulfilling a duty. There is no requirement for a blood relationship between the first person killed and the second person killed. A period that is not very short must have elapsed between the first and second killings, allowing the offender to become free from the pain, anger and rage caused by the first killing and to act under the influence of tradition exclusively with the purpose and awareness of fulfilling a duty. Each of these conditions must be assessed separately according to the circumstances of the individual case. Must the First Killing Have Been Completed? According to the approach of the Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation described in the source document, yes. The first killing must be a completed killing. In other words, the first act carried out with the purpose of killing must not have remained at the attempt stage; death must actually have occurred. The legal nature of the first incident is therefore important in determining whether the second killing was committed with the motive of blood feud. Must the First Killing Have Been Intentional? According to the assessment of the Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation described in the source document, the first killing does not necessarily have to have been committed intentionally. It is stated that, for the formation of intentional killing with the motive of blood feud, there is no difference between the first killing having been committed intentionally, negligently or through a combination of intent and negligence. The decision of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 8 February 2010, which is included in the source, likewise states that the previous killing does not necessarily have to have been committed intentionally. Is a Family Relationship Required Between the First and Second Persons Killed? No. According to the approach of the Criminal General Assembly described in the source document, there is no requirement for a blood relationship between the first person killed and the second person killed. What matters is that the second killing was committed with the motive of blood feud. Therefore, examining only family or kinship relationships is not sufficient in assessing the offence. The purpose and motive with which the offender acted are among the determining factors. Does Killing the Person Who Committed the First Killing Constitute Blood Feud? This is one of the important issues on which the Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation and the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation have adopted different approaches. According to the source document, the Criminal General Assembly may consider killing the person who committed the first killing to fall within the scope of blood feud under certain conditions, but requires sufficient time to have passed between the two incidents for the offender to become free from the pain, anger and rage created by the first killing. The approach of the 1st Criminal Chamber, however, is that killing the person who committed the first killing should in principle be considered killing under unjust provocation rather than killing with the motive of blood feud. According to the Chamber, killing with the motive of blood feud may be committed not against the perpetrator of the first killing but against that person's relatives. This distinction may directly affect whether the offence is classified as basic intentional killing under Article 81 of the Turkish Penal Code or aggravated intentional killing with the motive of blood feud under Article 82/1-j. What Is the Difference Between the Motive of Blood Feud and Unjust Provocation? The distinction between intentional killing with the motive of blood feud and killing under unjust provocation is particularly important in relation to the offender's psychological state and purpose in committing the act. According to the approach of the 1st Criminal Chamber described in the source document, motive and provocation cannot be applied together; where provocation exists, the motive of blood feud can no longer be mentioned. For this reason, according to the Chamber's approach, killing the perpetrator of the first killing is considered killing under unjust provocation rather than blood feud. Therefore, an act committed under the influence of intense pain and anger immediately following an incident may not receive the same legal classification as an act committed after a period of time with a sense of revenge and an awareness of fulfilling a duty. Must a Certain Period of Time Pass Between the Two Killings? There are different approaches in Court of Cassation decisions on this issue as well. According to the approach of the Criminal General Assembly described in the source document, a period that is not very short must pass between the first and second killings. During this period, the offender must become free from the pain, anger and rage caused by the first incident and act under the influence of tradition exclusively with the purpose of fulfilling a duty. By contrast, the source document states that the 1st Criminal Chamber has adopted a different approach. While the Criminal General Assembly did not consider a period of four years and six months sufficient for the formation of the offence in one decision, the 1st Criminal Chamber has considered periods of one day or one hour sufficient and has even issued decisions in which it did not require any particular period to pass after the first killing. Accordingly, it is not possible to reach a definitive conclusion regarding the motive of blood feud merely by considering the chronological period between the two incidents. Must the Offender Act Exclusively with the Motive of Blood Feud? According to the source document, it is important that the offender acts exclusively with the motive of blood feud and an awareness of fulfilling a duty. Where the killing is based on another reason, the aggravated form based on the motive of blood feud cannot be applied. Where the act cannot be attributed to another reason and the offender acts exclusively with the motive of blood feud and an awareness of fulfilling a duty, killing with the motive of blood feud may arise. The offender's motive must therefore be examined in detail during criminal proceedings. How Is the Motive of Blood Feud Determined? The motive of blood feud is not a material element that can be directly observed. Since it concerns the offender's purpose when committing the act, it must be assessed through all the circumstances of the incident. The connection between the first and second killings, the relationship between the offender and the parties, the development of the events, the period between the two incidents and whether there was another reason behind the second killing may all be relevant to this assessment. In particular, because the source document emphasises the criterion of acting “exclusively with the motive of blood feud and an awareness of fulfilling a duty,” determining the purpose for which the offender committed the act may directly affect the legal classification of the offence. What Is the Penalty for Intentional Killing with the Motive of Blood Feud? Intentional killing with the motive of blood feud is one of the aggravated forms of intentional killing regulated under Article 82 of the Turkish Penal Code. Therefore, where the offence is found to have been committed within the scope of Article 82/1-j, the sanction applicable to aggravated intentional killing becomes relevant. Correctly determining whether the offence constitutes basic intentional killing under Article 81 or aggravated intentional killing with the motive of blood feud under Article 82/1-j is therefore extremely important in terms of the legal nature of the penalty. Is Attempted Killing with the Motive of Blood Feud Possible? The source document includes a Court of Cassation decision in which attempted killing was considered within the same incident as killing with the motive of blood feud. In that decision, it was stated that the defendant, with the purpose of taking revenge for an incident in which his brother had been killed through negligence, killed one person with the motive of blood feud and attempted to kill another person. Accordingly, where the offender begins acts of execution with the purpose of killing with the motive of blood feud but death does not occur, the provisions governing attempt may also become relevant. Security and Protective Measures in Intentional Killing with the Motive of Blood Feud The source document states that certain protective measures may be used in relation to intentional killing with the motive of blood feud. These include: Interception, Recording, Evaluation of signal information, Surveillance by technical means, Audio or video recording.   Application of these measures is assessed within the conditions established by criminal procedure legislation. Is Intentional Killing with the Motive of Blood Feud Subject to a Complaint? No. According to the source document, intentional killing with the motive of blood feud is not an offence subject to complaint. Therefore, the absence of a complaint by the victim or persons harmed by the offence, or withdrawal of a complaint, does not terminate the public prosecution. Investigation and prosecution of the offence continue regardless of a complaint. Is Reconciliation Possible for Intentional Killing with the Motive of Blood Feud? No. The source document expressly states that intentional killing with the motive of blood feud is not subject to reconciliation. An agreement between the parties therefore does not mean that the reconciliation provisions of criminal procedure law will apply. What Is the Limitation Period for Intentional Killing with the Motive of Blood Feud? According to the source document, the limitation period for prosecution of intentional killing with the motive of blood feud is 30 years from the date on which the offence was committed. The course of proceedings and the relevant criminal law provisions in the individual case should also be taken into account when assessing limitation periods. Which Court Has Jurisdiction over Intentional Killing with the Motive of Blood Feud? According to the source document, proceedings concerning intentional killing with the motive of blood feud are heard before the High Criminal Court. Because of the nature of the offence and the seriousness of its sanction, correctly determining the legal classification of the offence during the investigation and prosecution stages is particularly important. The Role of a Criminal Lawyer in Blood Feud Killing Cases Legal assessment in cases concerning intentional killing with the motive of blood feud is not limited to determining whether death occurred. In particular, the following matters should be examined in detail: The nature of the first killing, Its connection with the second killing, The offender's motive, Whether a desire for revenge existed, Whether the offender acted with an awareness of fulfilling a duty, The period between the two incidents, Whether the provisions on unjust provocation may apply, Whether the motive of blood feud was exclusive, Whether the act remained at the attempt stage, The effect of Court of Cassation case law on the particular case. The source document also emphasises the importance of professional legal assistance in criminal law due to the seriousness of the offence. Intentional Killing with the Motive of Blood Feud Cases in Ümraniye In cases concerning intentional killing with the motive of blood feud, the legal nature of the incident, the offender's motive and the criteria established in Court of Cassation decisions should be assessed together. In particular, the distinction between the motive of blood feud and unjust provocation, whether the person targeted was the perpetrator of the first killing or one of that person's relatives, the period between the two incidents and whether the offender acted for another purpose may be important in determining the legal classification of the offence. Therefore, when a legal assessment is made within the scope of an Ümraniye criminal lawyer, Istanbul criminal lawyer, Ataşehir criminal lawyer, Çekmeköy criminal lawyer, serious crimes lawyer or intentional killing lawyer, the material facts in the case file and the relevant case law should be examined together. Ümraniye Criminal Lawyer Assistance Legal assistance concerning intentional killing with the motive of blood feud may include: Reviewing the investigation file, Assessing evidence, Determining the legal classification of the offence, Examining the allegation of a blood feud motive, Assessing the provisions on unjust provocation, Reviewing detention and other protective measures, Conducting proceedings before the High Criminal Court, Assessing Court of Cassation decisions in relation to the specific case, Conducting appellate proceedings. Conclusion Intentional killing with the motive of blood feud is regulated under Article 82/1-j of the Turkish Penal Code as an aggravated form of intentional killing. The mere fact that a previous killing occurred is not sufficient for the offence to arise. The connection between the second killing and the previous incident, the offender's motive of revenge, awareness of fulfilling a duty, the period between the incidents and whether the act was based on another reason must all be assessed. As described in the source document, the Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation and the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation have different approaches particularly concerning the killing of the person who committed the first killing, the period required between the two incidents and the relationship between unjust provocation and the motive of blood feud. The offence is not subject to complaint or reconciliation; the source document states that the limitation period for prosecution is 30 years and that proceedings are conducted before the High Criminal Court. Therefore, matters such as intentional killing with the motive of blood feud, Article 82/1-j of the Turkish Penal Code, intentional killing, aggravated intentional killing, unjust provocation, High Criminal Court proceedings, Ümraniye criminal lawyer, Istanbul criminal lawyer, Ataşehir criminal lawyer and Çekmeköy criminal lawyer should be assessed in detail according to the circumstances of each individual case.