Retributive or Restorative?: A Descriptive Research on the Criminal Justice Understandings of Law Enforcements in Istanbul

Author:

CEBECİOĞLU Gülçin1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. AHİ EVRAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ FEN EDEBİYAT FAKÜLTESİ SOSYOLOJİ BÖLÜMÜ

Abstract

The main purpose of this study is the role of punishment philosophies in the determination of punishments; from this point of view, it is to determine the understanding of criminal justice that dominates the Turkish Criminal Justice system. In this context, among the criminal justice theories, retributive justice seeing punishment as the first and primary way of dealing with injustices in the criminal justice system and believes that justice is established when the courts sentence the defendants, and restorative justice questioning the adequacy and necessity of this system and renewing the sense of justice with the alternatives it offers are focused on. Here, the parameters through which law enforcement judges, prosecutors and lawyers evaluate these two dimensions in the determination of penalties are aimed to be revealed. The data of the research, in which the qualitative research method was used, were obtained from in-depth interviews with 62 judges, prosecutors and lawyers working in criminal law in Istanbul. The data obtained were analyzed using the Maxqda Plus 2020.4 computer program. As a result, it was observed that the law enforcement officers did not focus on only one dimension of the punishment, but made different evaluations according to the crime committed, the severity of the crime, the damage it caused, and the characteristics of the accused. The most striking point here is that clear-cut distinctions cannot be seen between retributive and restorative features contrary to what is claimed in foreign researches.

Publisher

Sakarya University

Reference6 articles.

1. Akçay, Püren. “Onarıcı Adalet Modeli Çerçevesinde Uzlaştırma ve Çocuk Mahkemelerinde Uygulanması”. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 9 (2011), 129-144.

2. Arıcan, Mehmet. Ceza Adaleti: Sistemi, Etkinliği ve İşleyişi. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2009.

3. Ashworth, Andrew. Criminal Justice, Rights and Sentencing: A Review of Sentencing Policy and Problems. Sentencing in Australia, 35, 1986.

4. Ashworth, Andrew ve V. Roberts, Julian. “Re-evaluating the Justifications for Aggravation and Mitigation at Sentencing”, Mitigation and Aggravation at Sentencing, ed. Julian V. Roberts. London: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

5. Bıçak, Vahit, Onarıcı Adalet Yaklaşımıyla Ceza Adalet İsteminin Yeniden İnşası. Adalet Şurası, Ankara, 2019. Beccaria, Cesare. (2015), Suçlar ve Cezalar Hakkında. çev. Sami Selçuk. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi, 2015.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3