Eylem
Ümit
JUVENILE
JUSTICE SYSTEM IN TURKEY
IN
ENACTMENT AND PRACTICE
“When I visit a land I=
am
interested in the application of laws not how good they are.”
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; Montesquie=
u
In contravention to the title, children in
conflict with the law are subject to the Penal Code of Turkey. In this coun=
try
we cannot refer to a separate criminal justice system for juveniles. Howeve=
r,
there are several legislative provisions in different enactments, and accor=
ding
to the law, there is a Juvenile Court system separated from the adult court=
s.
In this article we intend to evaluate the scattered legislation in the vari=
ous
codes and deal with current legal practice in the juvenile judiciary.
If we are to summarize the = Juvenile Justice System in Turkey we should first glance at the legislation and the institutions that are authorised. As it is pointed out, Turkey has not draw= n up laws on punishments for young offenders that include a specific punitive system; on the contrary, while providing for certain limited and reduced penalties, the same punishments are applied to minors as adults. Hence, the= New Turkish Penal Code No.5237 (June 2005) has a wide range of applications for young offenders. Surveying the legislation concerning young offenders in pe= nal law, we can say that the traditional approach of responding with punitive measures after an offence has been committed is predominant. As it is commonly assumed, the traditional approach, also called the crime control model, does not address= the cause of the behaviour or improve the situation for the young adult, the family, or the community.[1] Since this model aims to control crime and protect society from deviation, = it is based on the sanction process, such as arrest, detention and imprisonment a= s a means of strengthening deterrence.[2] Because of inadequacy in protecting, reintegrating, and re-educating minors= in conflict with the law in the context of the traditional approach, the neces= sity for alternative approaches such as the protection and welfare models has arisen. The Child Protection Code (Act no.5395) that entered into force in 2005, the Code on the Execution of Punishments and Security Measures (Act no: 5275 of 2004), and the Co= de on Probation Services and Protection Boards which was promulgated in 2005 a= nd numbered: 5402 are some of the laws which have been made to meet that social need. Even though the new Child Protection Code (CPC hereinafter) establish= ed new protective proceedings and measures, the provisions of the Penal Proced= ure Code remain applicable where a matter is not treated in the CPC. For this reason, the Turkish Penal Code (TPC hereinafter) and other basic legislation will be invoked where provisions are not available in the CPC regarding arr= est, detention and imprisonment. Given all these legislative enactments, it has = been rightly observed that there is a mixed system in the Juvenile Judiciary in Turkey.
Although there is no justic= e system which is particular to juveniles, there is a juvenile police force that was drawn up under the CPC Article 31. And a juvenile bureau in the Offic= e of the Public Prosecutor is constituted according to Article 29 of the CPC. Th= is bureau is charged to conduct the investigation concerning juveniles involve= d in crime. Also the CPC Article 25 imposed specific courts for accused juveniles.[3]<= /span>
In Turkish law, the term of “juvenile” can be translated=
as
corresponding to “children” or “minor”. According to
Article 6 of the TPC No.5237, “Persons who have not completed their
eighteenth year of age are defined as a child.” Also in the CPC Artic=
le
3, a juvenile is defined as “Any individual that has not yet completed
age eighteen, regardless of whether they have reached full legal age
earlier.” Thus the definition o=
f the
child in Turkish law has been amended in accordance with the UN Convention =
on
the Rights of the Child. Accordingly, for the first time in Turkish
legislation, every person below the age of 18 is defined as a child.
Under the Turkish Penal Code, penal liabi=
lity
starts from the age of 12. Children under 12 years of age cannot be impriso=
ned;
only security measures may be adopted against them. The age of transition to
full penal liability is 18 and according to the Law on Juvenile Courts, the
minimum age to stand in these Courts is 18 years.
The relevant article of the TPC is as fol=
lows:
ARTICLE 31
(1)
Children who have not completed their twelfth year of age at the time of the
action don’t have penal liability. Criminal prosecution cannot be
executed against these persons, however safety measures specific to children
can be applied.
(2) The persons who have completed =
age 12
but not 15 don’t have penal liability in case of not having the abili=
ty
of perceiving the legal meaning and consequences of their actions or not ha=
ving
a sufficient capacity of self-determination. However safety measures specif=
ic
to children can be taken concerning them. In the case of being capable of
perceiving the legal meaning and consequences of one’s act and of
self-determination regarding this act, the penalty will be reduced: from an
aggravated life sentence to a penalty of twelve to fifteen years, and a life
sentence to a penalty of nine to eleven years. Other penalties will be redu=
ced
by half; and under this condition the maximum penalty for each deed could n=
ot
be more than seven years.
(3)
The penal sentence of the persons who have completed age 15 but not 18 at t=
he
time of committing the act will be reduced: an aggravated life sentence to a
penalty of eighteen to twenty-four years, and a life sentence to a penalty =
of
twelve to fifteen years. Other penalties will be reduced by one third, and
under this condition the penalty for each deed could not be more than twelve
years.
This classification according to the different age groups parallels =
the
legislative provisions concerning the 14-18 age group in the Italian Penal
Code, which is the reference code of Turkish Penal Law.[4]
According to this classification there are three different groups in penal
liability.
The first group is defined in the first paragraph of Article 31 as
absence of penal liability. For this group there is no penal liability thus
prosecution cannot be executed for them and they cannot be penalized. The a=
ge
limit for this group is determined as 12 in the new TPC. The absence of
criminal liability for this group is an absolute presumption therefore the
contrary cannot be proved.[5]
&=
nbsp; Children
under the age of 12 cannot be arrested by reason of crime. Only authenticat=
ion
is allowed. They cannot be used either in ascertainment of a crime. In the =
case
of a child under the age of 12 having committed a crime, protective and
supportive measures which have been drawn up under the CPC can be applied. Acco=
rding
to Article 5, protective and supportive measures are measures to be
taken, in terms of consulting, education, care, health and shelter, first a=
nd
foremost for the purpose of protecting the child within a natural family
environment. These measures are as follows:
ARTICLE
5
“a)
A consultancy measure provides guidance on child rearing to those who are
responsible for the care of the child, and guidance to children on solving
problems related to their education and development;
b)
An education/training measure is oriented towards ensuring that the child
attends an education institution as a day-student or boarding student, atte=
nds
a vocational training course or arts & crafts course, or is deployed wi=
th a
master of his profession as an apprentice or at an office belonging to the
public or private sector for the purpose of acquiring a job or a profession=
.
c) A care measure makes governmental or p=
rivate
care centre services or foster family services available for the child or
places the child under the care of such institutions, in the event that the
person responsible for the care of the juvenile fails to fulfil his/her care
duties due to any reason,
d) A
health measure ensures the temporary or continuous medical care and
rehabilitation that is necessary for treatment and protection of the
child’s physical and physiological health, and treatment and therapy =
for
children who use addictive substances,
e) A
shelter measure is a measure to provide a suitable shelter for those who ha=
ve
children but do not have a place to live, or to pregnant women whose lives =
are
in danger.(...)
(3)
If it is determined that the child is not under any danger, or if it is
realized that, although the child
is in danger, such danger can be eliminated by supporting the
child’s parent or curator or the person who is responsible for the
child’s care, then the child may be delivered to these persons. For t=
he
purposes of this paragraph, one of the measures specified in the first
paragraph can also be decided.”
&=
nbsp; According
to Article 7, these measures can be taken by the juvenile judge either ex
officio or upon the request of the child’s father, mother, curator, t=
he
person responsible for the care and supervision of the child, the Agency for
Social Services and Child Protection or the Public prosecutor. Before the
decision, a social inquiry[6]
regarding the child may be carried out. The type of measure shall be indica=
ted
in the decision. The judge may decide for one or more measures; also he may
impose the measure of probation. Taking into consideration the development =
of
the child, the judge may decide to change or abrogate the protective and
supportive measure. The execution of the measure will terminate ipso facto,
when the child reaches age eighteen. However, the judge may decide to conti=
nue
execution of the measure for a certain period of time in order to allow the
child to continue his training or education, provided that the acquiescence=
of
the child is taken. Concerning the child being in need of protection, the c=
ourt
shall also have the authority to decide on guardianship, whether by nature =
or
appointed, trustee, alimony and personal contact, according the Turkish Civ=
il
Code, in addition to protective and supportive measures.
&=
nbsp; As
it is rightly observed no investigation is required in order to take these
measures. The decision for measures shall be imposed without any hearings f=
or
children driven to crime and who do not have penal liability. In other words
the accused child is being deprived of the rights of any defendant. This is=
one
of the paternalist aspects of the juvenile justice system and it is obvious=
ly
against the “responsibility model” which is introduced by vario=
us
international agreements and treaties such as The Beijing Rules, The Riyadh
Guidelines etc. It is now widely accepted that minors should have the same
rights and guarantees as adults in criminal proceedings such as a fair and
impartial hearing within the frame of the responsibility model.
The second paragraph of Article 31 of the=
TPC
settled the presence of penal liability for children between 12- 15, the
development of the ability to perceive the legal meaning of one’s act=
and
self-determination.
If a child, who has complet= ed age 12 but not 15, cannot perceive the legal meaning and the consequences of his act and doesn’t have a sufficient capacity of self-determination then= he or she will be classified in the same way as the children under 12.<= /p>
In the second paragraph it = is assumed that a child aged 12-15 who cannot perceiv= e the legal meaning and the consequences of his or her act and doesn’t have= a sufficient capacity of self-determination has no penal liability. And thus = the situation is determined as the lack of capacity of imputability. The legal ground for the sole examination of each case within this classification is stated as follows:
“Young people in the age of puberty who have completed twelve
years of age but are younger than fifteen, are generally in recognition of =
their
act as unfair even though they cannot prevent themselves from the act and
cannot be in full possession of their senses. In the case where it is
identified that a person of the age of between 12-15 is able to self-determ=
ine
in accordance with his or her act, it is concluded to have penal
liability.”[7]
According
to the preamble of the law, a child’s penal liability, aged 12-15 dur=
ing
the term of the act, is determined by the judge taking into account the soc=
ial
workers’ reports on the child’s family circumstances, social and
economic conditions and psycho-sociological and
educational possibilities. If the judge believes that the child has no capa=
city
of imputability and thus no penal liability, he may then decide that there =
is
no ground for punishment and impose the protective, supportive, educational=
and
reintegrational measures in accordance with the provisions of the CPC. If t=
he
judge accepts that the child has penal liability, the sentence of the
child’s act shall be determined taking into consideration the abateme=
nt
clauses in the second paragraph. This arrangement is to accept the existence of a k=
ind
of “depleted capacity of imputability” that implies a legal
liability in terms of this second classification which at the same time does
not reach the level of an adult. Therefore, the 12-15 years can be determin=
ed
to be classified as those years where legal liability is subject to be
examined, and depleted liability applied in the cases where legal liability=
is
pleaded. In fact, the “conditional
liability” “partial liability” and “inaccuracy̶=
1;
terms are commonly used to determine this period in the doctrine.[8]
However,
in practice, this article is not being applied in accordance with the aim of
the legislator. The social inquiry reports regarding to the child’s
family environment and social, economic, psychological
For
example, in a study executed by Yaşar Bilge and his colleagues on 4283
children who were faced with a lawsuit in Ankara Juvenile Court between
1989-1994, the rate of doli capax is determined as 96,2%.[9]
Research reports displayed the rating in
Elazığ (1991-1998) as 97.6%[10]=
,
in Antalya (1987-1993) as 98.8%[11]=
,
in İzmir (1991-1993) as 99.8%[12]=
,
in Sivas as 97%, in Samsun as 100%[13]=
,
in Kocaeli (1996-2001) as 94.7%[14]=
,
and in Bursa (1988-1992) as 99.2%[15].
The
consequences of the doli capax report provided by the forensic doctor have
vital importance for the child[16].
According to the TPC Article 31, sanctions are applicable if a child between
12-15 years of age driven to crime is concluded to be doli capax. However, if the child is decided to be doli inc=
apax
he is diverted out of penal law and becomes the subject of the CPC. When the
CPC is applicable a child can be supported without being a “criminal
subject” and can be directed towards “social reintegration and
rehabilitation” ideals by means of the help of court decisions such as
protection measures or probation. It is also known that the Supreme Court of
Appeal overrules a judge’s decision that does not impose a penalty in
spite of a doli capax report according to the CPC and does not allow judici=
al
discretion to the judge to impose measures instead of a penalty.[17]
&=
nbsp; Judicial
orders that can be imposed concerning a child involved in crime are as foll=
ows
in Turkish legislation:
Ø
Pr=
otective
and Supportive Measures (CPC 5)
Ø
Co=
nciliation
(CPC 24)
Ø
Pe=
nalty
( CPC 31)
Ø
Su=
spension
of execution (CPC 51)
Ø
Su=
spension
of the Announcement of the sentence (CPC 23)
The duties of the probation officer are listed as
follows in CPC Article 38:
ARTICLE 38
R=
20;(1) Duties of the probation officer are as follows:
a)
to support, assist, and when necessary, advise the child in order to ensure=
the
child’s adaptation to the educational, familial, institutional, busin=
ess
and social environment so as to realize the objective of the court decision=
.
b) to
provide guidance to the child about institutions from which the child can
receive education, employment or support, and with regard to his/her rights=
and
how to exercise such rights.
c) to assist the child in benefiting from the services which he/she may need.<= o:p>
d)
to visit the places where the child stays, the persons with whom he/she
contacts, and hence examine on-site the education and business performance =
of
the child, and his/her leisure activities.
e) to
monitor the implementation of the court decision, the consequences of the
implementation thereof, and its effects on the child, and to inspect the
fulfilment of the obligations imposed on the child.
f)
to submit reports on the development of the child, at three-month intervals=
, to
the Public prosecutor or the court.”[18]
&n=
bsp; Even
though the general situation in legal provisions (especially in the CPC), s=
eems
to be in accordance with the Juvenile Justice System models brought
forward by the international
documents to which Turkey is signatory, most of the judicial orders imposed
concerning children involved in crime are sanctions, and mostly penalties. Considering the jurispr=
udence
it’s obvious that usually the suspension of execution is imposed for =
the
delinquent children. Supportive and protective measures are rarely applicab=
le
when it can be seen that conciliation has never yet been applied..
Consequently, in the Juvenile Justice System in Turkey, we observe that the
penalty norms applicable to adults are applied to children as reducing the
punishments. Neither the old approaches known as the welfare model nor newer
trends of reparative or restorative systems of justice are yet very common =
in
practice in Turkey.
Bibliography:
Bekir = AKSAY &= nbsp; Minority in Penal Law and Effects on Capacity of Imputability and
Property, [Mala Yönelik Su&cc=
edil;lar
Açısından Çocuk Suçluluğu] Journal
of İzmir Bar Association=
,
S.:2, Y.: 2001.
Sevim
ÇEVİK, =
İstanbul
2nd Juvenile Court Judge, Turkish System, Child and Youngsters in
The System of Justice, [Adalet Sisteminde Çocuklar ve Gençler, Türkiye
Sistemi] İstanbul,
2006.
A ÇOLTU,
İ.Hamit HANCI,
B. EGE,
<= span lang=3DTR>S. DEMİRCAN = ; The Demographic Specialities of Ch= ildren Examined for Capax Doli in Bursa in 1988-1992, [1988-1992 Yıllar= ı Arasında Bursa'da Farik ve Mümeyyizlik Muayenesine Gönderilen Çocukların Demografik Özellikleri] = 7th National Forensic Days, 1-5 November Antalya, (1993).
Sulhi DÖNMEZER The Essence of the Penal Liability=
, [Cezai Mesuliyetin Esası] İstanbul, 19=
49.
<=
span
lang=3DTR>
DÜLGER-
İ.Hamit HANCI =
,
Süheyla
ERTÜRK,
To Examination For Capax Doli Between 1998 and 1991 in Elazı =
7;. [=
1998-1991
Yılları Arasında Suç İşledikleri
İddiasıyla Elazığ'da Farik Mümeyyizlik Muayenesi
için Gönderilen Çocukların Demografik Özellikl=
eri]
Journal of Forensic Science , V.:8 1992.
<=
span
lang=3DTR>
<=
span
lang=3DEN-GB style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;mso-ansi-l=
anguage:
EN-GB'>Giovanni
<=
span
lang=3DEN-GB style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;mso-ansi-l=
anguage:
EN-GB'>FIANDANCA-
<=
span
lang=3DEN-GB style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;mso-ansi-l=
anguage:
EN-GB'>Angelo GIARDA, &nb=
sp; Codice
Penale, Codice Di Procedura Penale, Leggi Complementari, Milano,1998,
Translated by Recep Gülşen, Legislations on Juvenile Jurisdiction=
in
Italy, in Children and Crime-Punishment, [İtalya’da Çocuk
Yargılamasına İlişkin Düzenlemeler, Çocuklar ve Suç-Ceza]
Ankara, 2005.
Thomas
=
=
Y.
Mustafa
=
KARAGÖZ,
=
Mehmet
ATILGAN, Retrospective Evaluation o=
f 1408
Capax Doli Examination
Facts in Antalya, in 1987-1993. [Antalya'da 1987-1993
Yıllarında Farik-i Mümeyyizlik Muayenesi Yapılan 1408
Olgunun Retrospektif Değerlendirilmesi] =
1st
National Forensic Congress, Istanbul 1994.
Ayhan
ÖNDER, &=
nbsp; General
Provisions of Penal Law, [Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler] V.: II, İstanbul, 1989. Gülriz ÖZKÖK &nb=
sp; Juvenile
Courts in Turkey, (A Research in the Frame of Sociological Jurisprudence) [Türkiye’de Çocuk Mahkemeleri (Hukuk Sosyolojisi
Açısından Bir İnceleme)] Unpublished
master thesis, Ankara, 1990. St=
ephen
PFOHL &n=
bsp; Images
of Deviance and Social Control: a Sociological History, second edition, USA,
1994. Jesse
R.PITTS and Amitai ETZİONI, Social
Control, Crime Critical Concepts in Sociology, ed.: Philip Bean, V.:III, NY,
2003. =
A.
TURLA, =
Ö.
BÖKE, =
Y.
BAŞAR, K. USLU =
; &n=
bsp; Sociodemographic
Specialities of Capax Doli Examinations in Samsun. =
[Samsun'da
Farik ve Mümeyyizlik Muayenelerinin Sosyodemografik Özellikleri] =
Forensic Review 2002; 16/1. <=
span
lang=3DTR>
Sevda
ULUĞTEKİN Juve=
nile
Courts and Social Inquiry Reports, [Çocuk Mahkemeleri ve Sosyal
İnceleme Raporları] Ankara, 2004.
<=
span
lang=3DTR>
<= span lang=3DTR>Eylem ÜMİT &= nbsp; So= cial Habitus of Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas and Penal Liability Examinations, [Kentte Suça Karışmış Çocuklarda Toplumsal Ortam ve Ceza Ehliyeti Araştırmaları] Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ankara, 2006.
<=
span
lang=3DTR style=3D'layout-grid-mode:line'>Cezmi YAVUZ,
<=
span
lang=3DTR style=3D'layout-grid-mode:line'>İ.Hamit HANCI,
<=
span
lang=3DTR style=3D'layout-grid-mode:line'>Ali ÇAKMAK,
<=
span
lang=3DTR style=3D'layout-grid-mode:line'>Yücel ARISOY,
<= span lang=3DTR style=3D'layout-grid-mode:line'>B. EGE. &nb= sp; Juvenile Delinquency in İzmir in 1991-1993 [1991-1993 Yılları Arasında İzmir'= de Çocuk Suçluluğu] 1st Judicial Scienses Congress, Congress Book 151-154. Adana 1994.
____________ &=
nbsp; Council
of Europe Recommendation No. R (87) 20.
____________ =
Social
Reactions To Juvenile Delinquency, Recommendation No. R (88) 6.
____________ &= nbsp; Social Reactions To Juvenile Delinquency Among Young People From Migrant Families = and Recommendation No.R (2000) 20.
____________ =
The
Role of Early Psychosocial Intervention in The Prevention of Criminality;
Opinion of the European Economic and the social Commitee on the Prevention =
of
Juvenile Delinquency; Way of dealing with juvenile delinquency and the role=
of
Juvenile Justice System in The European Union No.(2006/C 110/13).
[1] For further information about the crime control model (traditional
approach): Stephen PFOHL, Images of Deviance and Social Control: A
Sociological History, second edition, USA, 1994, p.1-16; The traditional
approach is also evaluated in international texts: Council of Europe
Recommendation No. R (87) 20; Social Reactions To Juvenile Delinquency,
Recommendation No. R (88) 6 ; Social Reactions To Juvenile Delinquency Among
Young People From Migrant Families and Recommendation No.R (2000) 20; The R=
ole
of Early Psychosocial Intervention in The Prevention of Criminality; Opinio=
n of
the European Economic and the social Commitee on the Prevention of Juvenile
Delinquency; Way of dealing with juvenile delinquency and the role of Juven=
ile
Justice System in The European Union No.(2006/C 110/13).
[2] Jesse R.PITTS and Amitai ETZİONİ, Social Control, Crime
Critical Concepts in Sociology, ed.: Philip Bean, V.:III, NY, 2003,
p.109-144; PFOHL, Images of Deviance and Social Control..., p.81-96;
Thomas HAMMARBERG, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Right Dimension of Juvenile
Justice, Moscow, 5-6 July,
http://www.coe.int/t/transversalprojects/children/speec= hes/speechesHammarberg_en.asp;
[3] Article 3 of the Child Protection Law makes a division between Juve= nile Courts and Juvenile Heavy Penal Courts. Juvenile Courts were established according to the repealed Act on the Establishment, Jurisdiction and Proced= ure of the Juvenile Courts (No. 2253 of 1979). For further information about th= is code and first application of the code: Gülriz ÖZKÖK, Juv= enile Courts in Turkey, (A Research in the Frame of Sociological Jurisprudence) [Türkiye= ’de Çocuk Mahkemeleri (Hukuk Sosyolojisi Açısından Bir İnceleme) ]Unpublished thesis, Ankara, 1990.
[4] For further information about this legislation in Italian Law: Giov=
anni
FIANDANCA-Angelo GIARDA, Codice Penale, Codice Di Procedura Penale, Leggi
Complementari, Milano,1998, Translated by Recep Gülşen, Le=
gislations
on Juvenile Jurisdiction in Italy, in Children and Crime-Punishment,
[İtalya’da Çocuk Yargılamasına İlişkin
Düzenlemeler, Çocuklar ve Suç-Ceza]
Ankara, 2005, s.441-467.
[5]Sulhi DÖNMEZER, The Essence of the Penal Liability, [Cezai Mesuli= yetin Esası] İstanbul,1949, p.174.
[6] Social inquiry reports (SIR) are not usually carried out due to the lack of basic facilities such = as social workers and other experts or other required allocation. For further information concerning the application of the social inquiry reports: Sevda ULUĞTEKİN, Juvenile Courts and Social Inquiry Reports, [Çocuk Mahkemeleri ve Sosyal İnceleme Raporları] Ankara, 2= 004.
<=
![if !supportFootnotes]>[7]The Presentation Web s=
ite of
New Penal Justice System, Ministry of Justice, http://w=
ww.ceza-bb.adalet.gov.tr/mevzuat/maddegerekce.doc.
[8] Bekir AKSAY, Minority in Penal Law and Effec=
ts on
Capacity of Imputability and Liability, [Ceza Hukukunda Yaş
Küçüklüğü, Kusur Yeteneğine ve Sorumluluğa Etkisi]
[9] Yaşar BİLGE, İ.Hamit HANCI, &Oum=
l;zer
KENDİ, Z. BEYDAĞ TIRAŞ,&nbs=
p;
Juvenile Delinquency From
the Aspect of the Crimes Against Property, [Mala Yönelik Suçlar Açısından
Çocuk Suçluluğu] Journal of İzmir Bar Association , S.:2, Y=
.:
2001.
[12] Cezmi YAVUZ, İ.Hamit HANCI, Ali ÇAKMAK, Yücel ARISOY, B. EGE, Juve=
nile
Delinquency in İzmir in 1991-1993, [19=
91-1993
Yılları Arasında İzmir'de Çocuk
Suçluluğu] 1st Judicial Scienses Congress, Congress Book,
Adana, 1994, p. 151-154.
[13] A. TURLA, Ö. BÖKE, Y. BAŞAR,=
K.
USLU, Sociodemographic Specialities of Mental Competance Examinations in
Samsun, [Samsun'da Farik ve Mümeyyizlik Muayenelerinin Sosyodemogr=
afik
Özellikleri] Forensic Review 2002; 16/1.
[14] Ü.N. GÜNDOĞMUŞ, B.
ÇOLAK, H. BOZ, Ü. BİÇER, Evaluation of Mental
Competance Examinations Held in Kocaeli in 1996-2001, [1996-2001
Yıllarında Kocaeli'nde Yapılan Farik-i Mümeyyizlik
Muayenelerinin Değerlendirilmesi] Forensic Review 2003;17(2) p.1-7.
[15] A ÇO=
LTU,
Hamit HANCI, B. EGE, S. DEMİRCAN, The Demographic Specialities of Children Examined for
Mental Competance in Bursa in 1988-1992, [1988-1992 Yılları
Arasında Bursa'da Farik ve Mümeyyizlik Muayenesine Gönderilen
Çocukların Demografik Özellikleri] 7th National Forensic D=
ays,
1-5 November Antalya, (1993) p. 51-8.
[16] For a field research =
on
examination of penal liabilit=
y and
living environment of children involved in crime see, Eylem ÜMİT,=
Social Habitus of Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas and Penal Liability
Examinations, [Kentte Suça Karışmış
Çocuklarda Toplumsal Ortam ve Ceza Ehliyeti
Araştırmaları] Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ankara,
2006.
[17] Sevim ÇEVİ= ;K, İstanbul 2nd Juvenile Court Judge, Turkish System, Child and Youngs= ters in System of Justice, [Adalet Sisteminde Çocuklar ve Genç= ler, Türkiye Sistemi]İstanbul, 2006, p.145-149.
[18] For the uno=
fficial
translation of the whole text of CPC in English:
http://www.law.yale.edu/rcw/rcw/jurisdictions/asw/turkey= /Turkey_juv_prot_law_Eng.pdf
|
|
|
1<=
/span> |