Threat Crime & Punishment

Threat Crime & Punishment | Izmir Criminal Lawyer

Threat Crime & Punishment

threatening

noun, Arabic tehdīd

Intimidation

Turkish Penal Code The crime of threat, as defined in Article 106, can be described as a crime committed by inflicting harm on a person's rights and freedoms, such as their physical integrity or property. According to the relevant article of the law, a person who threatens another person by stating that they will carry out an attack on their life, bodily integrity, or sexual integrity, or that of a close relative, is considered a criminal offender., from six months to two years The perpetrator is punished with imprisonment up to a certain period. If the threat involves causing significant financial loss or other harm, the perpetrator is punished upon the victim's complaint., up to six months imprisonment or a judicial fine It is ruled.

Aggravated Forms of the Crime of Threat

The threat;

• With a weapon,
• By making oneself unrecognizable, through anonymous letters or special signs,
• By more than one person together,
• If the crime is committed by exploiting the intimidating power of existing or presumed criminal organizations, the perpetrator will be prosecuted. from two to five years a prison sentence is imposed.

If the crimes of intentional killing, intentional wounding, or damage to property are committed with the intent to threaten, separate penalties will be imposed for those crimes.

Precedent Decisions Regarding the Crime of Threat

“"If I burn, you'll burn twice as much."”

Supreme Court 13th Criminal Chamber, Case No. 2016/11384, Decision No. 2017/27.

Regarding the defendant… with respect to the crime of Threat, the threat committed by the defendant through a message sent to the victim via mobile phone, stating "look brother, if I suffer, you will suffer twice as much, consider this a warning from me," falls under Article 256 of the Turkish Penal Code. 106The conviction under Article 106/1-1 of the same Law was rendered without considering that the offense of threat, as stated in sentence 1-2, constitutes a crime subject to complaint, that the prosecution of this crime is subject to complaint, and that the victim did not file a complaint… This necessitates reversal…

Displaying a weapon during a threat committed in the victim's absence is not sufficient to constitute an aggravated offense..

Supreme Court 4. Criminal Division 2014/4071 E. 2016/8906 K.

For the aggravated form of the crime of threat, namely a threat with a weapon, to be accepted, the weapon must be displayed or used in a way that is visible and tangible to the victim, increasing its impact on the victim. Furthermore, it must be used in a manner that causes damage, marks, or other signs to the victim's belongings, such as their home or car, thereby increasing the fear caused by the threat on the victim. Therefore, In a threat that occurs in the victim's absence, the mere display of a weapon is not sufficient to constitute the aggravated form of the crime.

Alcohol and anger do not negate intent in the commission of the crime of threatening.

Supreme Court 4th Criminal Chamber, Case No. 2013/26045 E., Decision No. 2015/37565 K.

While intense anger and distress caused by an unjust act during a fight or argument may be considered a mitigating factor due to a decrease in the perpetrator's capacity for culpability, provided certain conditions are met, it cannot be considered a matter that, in principle, eliminates intent and prevents the commission of the crime. In light of these explanations, given that the defendant allegedly threatened the victim with the words, "I'll cut you up tonight, even if you call the police, I'll have already cut you up by the time they arrive, they won't even find your remains," the acquittal decision, based on unlawful grounds, is contrary to the law. This decision fails to consider that alcohol and anger do not negate criminal intent, that the element of premeditation is absent in the crime of threat, and that the words spoken were objectively appropriate and sufficient to constitute a threat.

Saying whatever came to my mind would be tantamount to admitting guilt.

Supreme Court 4th Criminal Chamber, Case No. 2015/22450 E., Decision No. 2015/36963 K.

Given the defendant's evasive admission that "I said whatever came to my mind," and the victim's consistent statements during the investigation and prosecution phases, the decision to acquit the defendant on unfounded grounds, despite the defendant's guilt for the alleged crime of threatening, is contrary to the law, and the reasons for appeal by the Public Prosecutor of that locality and the opinion in the notification are deemed correct. THE VERDICT IS TO BE OVERTURNED...

For legal advice on this matter, please contact our expert team. Contact Can you pass?.

Other works that may be of interest to you;

Izmir Criminal Lawyer

Address: Nergis Neighborhood, Girne Boulevard No: 83, Floor 2, Apartment 2, Karşıyaka, İzmir

E-mail: info@efeshukuk.com

Phone: +90 534 415 52 56