Acceptability of the Criminal Liability for Criminal Attempt with Dolus Eventualis

Abstract

Criminal liability for attempt to commit is an institution that provides punishment to the perpetrators of an unfinished crime despite what has begun to be committed; thus, it expands the range of criminal liability. The punishment because due to an attempt is possible if only the perpetrator acts with the intention of performing any offense. Article 35 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) clearly explains the situation. Although Article 35 of the TPC does not determine that the intention must be the direct intention, the Turkish supreme court (Yargıtay), and criminal law doctrine accept that there is no criminal liability for attempt with conditioanal intent. For this reason, the rule that conditional intent is determined according to the result of the offence is mostly valid in Turkish criminal law. Thus, the existence of a conditional intent is conditioned on realizing the result in a practical but not theoretical sense. The background of this opinion is the concern that the range of criminal liability could be expanded intolerably. However, a different opinion in Turkish criminal law doctrine states that there is no difference between direct intent and conditional intent regarding the punishment of a criminal attempt. For this reason, according to the opinion, criminal liability is possible due to a criminal attempt with conditional intent. The conditional intent is determined independently from the result of crime according to German doctrine. In this work, if we accept the criminal liability for attempt with conditional intent, whether the concern to expand the range of criminal liability for attempt with conditional intent is true is examined by considering practices and theories of German Law.

Keywords

• conditional intent (eventual intent)
• criminal attempt
• voluntary abandonment
• alternative intent
• risk theories
• decision theories