İngiliz Hukukunda Kasten Öldürmede Ceza Sorumluluğunu Kaldıran veya Azaltan Bir Neden Olarak Rıza Sorunu
Öz
Bu makalede, İngiliz hukukunda kasten öldürme suçunda rızanın ceza sorumluluğunu kaldıran veya azaltan bir neden olarak kabul edilip edilmemesi sorunu ele alınacaktır. Bunu cevaplamak için öncelikle günümüzde İngiliz hukukunda kasten öldürmede mağdurun rızasını neyin etkisiz bıraktığı belirlenecektir. Daha sonra aşağıdaki konulara değinilecektir; ilk olarak, rıza nedir ve rızanın yasal ve ahlaki etkileri nelerdir, ikinci olarak, uygulanan hukukun rızayı kasten öldürmede ceza sorumluluğunu kaldıran bir neden olarak saymamasının arkasındaki sebepler nelerdir ve son olarak da rızanın kasten öldürmede ceza sorumluluğunu kaldıran bir neden olarak hizmet edip etmemesi gereği tartışılacaktır. Her ne kadar rızanın eylemin haksızlığını azalttığı söylenebilirse de insan onuru denilen nesnel ahlaki sebepten ötürü, rızanın tek başına kasten öldürmede hiçbir şekilde ceza sorumluluğunu kaldıran bir neden sayılmaması gerektiği tartışılacaktır.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- Alexander L, ‘The Moral Magic of Consent (II)’ (1996) 2 Legal Theory 165.
- Baker D J, ‘The Moral Limits of Consent as a Defense in the Criminal Law’ (2009) 12 New Criminal Law Review 93.
- Beale J H, ‘Consent In The Criminal Law’ (1895) 8:6 Harvard Law Review 317.
- Bergelson V, ‘The Right to Be Hurt: Testing the Boundaries of Consent’ (2007) 75 George Washington Law Review 165.
- – – ‘Consent to Harm’ (2008) 28 Pace Law Review 683.
- Biggar N, Aiming to Kill: The Ethics of Suicide and Euthanasia (Darton, Longman and Todd 2004).
- Dan-Cohen M, ‘Basic Values and the Victim’s State of Mind’ (2000) 88 California Law Review 759.
- Devlin P, ‘Morals and The Criminal Law’ in R. Dworkin (ed), The Philosophy of Law (OUP 1977) 66.
- Dubber M D, ‘Toward a Constitutional Law of Crime and Punishment’ (2004) 55 Hastings Law Journal 507.
- Duff A, ‘Harms and Wrongs’ (2001) 5 Buffalo Criminal Law Review 13.
- Dworkin R, ‘Introduction’ in R. Dworkin (ed), The Philosophy of Law (OUP 1977) 1.
- – – Life’s Dominion: An Argument about Abortion and Euthanasia (Harper Collins Publishers 1993).
- Feinberg J, The Moral Limits of The Criminal Law: Harm to Self, vol 3 (OUP 1989).
- Fletcher G P, Rethinking Criminal Law (OUP 2000).
- Harrison K M, ‘Law, Order, And The Consent Defense’ (1993) 12 St. Louis University Public Law Review 477.
- Hill T, Autonomy and Self-Respect (Cambridge University Press 1991).
- Hurd H M, ‘The Moral Magic of Consent’ (1996) 2 Legal Theory 121.
- Kamisar Y, ‘Some Non-Religious Views against Proposed Mercy Killing Legislation’ (1958) 42 Minnesota Law Review 969.
- Keown J, Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy: An Argument Against Legalisation (Cambridge University Press 2002).
- Leng R, ‘Consent in Criminal Law’ (1988) 13 Holdsworth Law Review 129.
- Mill J S, On Liberty (2nd edn, J. W. Parker and Son 1859).
Öz
In this article, the issue of whether consent should provide a complete or a partial defence of deliberate killing will be challenged within the scope of English law. In order to answer this, the article first determines what makes consent of the victim powerless in current English law. Next, the following topics will be addressed. First, what consent means and what the legal and moral effects of it are. Second, the reasons behind the current law for not recognizing consent as a defence of deliberate killing. Finally, this paper discusses whether or not consent should serve as a defence of deliberate killing. Although it may be claimed that consent reduces the wrongfulness of the act, it will be argued that consent alone should never provide a defence for those who deliberately kill others, due to an objective moral reasoning, namely human dignity.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- Alexander L, ‘The Moral Magic of Consent (II)’ (1996) 2 Legal Theory 165.
- Baker D J, ‘The Moral Limits of Consent as a Defense in the Criminal Law’ (2009) 12 New Criminal Law Review 93.
- Beale J H, ‘Consent In The Criminal Law’ (1895) 8:6 Harvard Law Review 317.
- Bergelson V, ‘The Right to Be Hurt: Testing the Boundaries of Consent’ (2007) 75 George Washington Law Review 165.
- – – ‘Consent to Harm’ (2008) 28 Pace Law Review 683.
- Biggar N, Aiming to Kill: The Ethics of Suicide and Euthanasia (Darton, Longman and Todd 2004).
- Dan-Cohen M, ‘Basic Values and the Victim’s State of Mind’ (2000) 88 California Law Review 759.
- Devlin P, ‘Morals and The Criminal Law’ in R. Dworkin (ed), The Philosophy of Law (OUP 1977) 66.
- Dubber M D, ‘Toward a Constitutional Law of Crime and Punishment’ (2004) 55 Hastings Law Journal 507.
- Duff A, ‘Harms and Wrongs’ (2001) 5 Buffalo Criminal Law Review 13.
- Dworkin R, ‘Introduction’ in R. Dworkin (ed), The Philosophy of Law (OUP 1977) 1.
- – – Life’s Dominion: An Argument about Abortion and Euthanasia (Harper Collins Publishers 1993).
- Feinberg J, The Moral Limits of The Criminal Law: Harm to Self, vol 3 (OUP 1989).
- Fletcher G P, Rethinking Criminal Law (OUP 2000).
- Harrison K M, ‘Law, Order, And The Consent Defense’ (1993) 12 St. Louis University Public Law Review 477.
- Hill T, Autonomy and Self-Respect (Cambridge University Press 1991).
- Hurd H M, ‘The Moral Magic of Consent’ (1996) 2 Legal Theory 121.
- Kamisar Y, ‘Some Non-Religious Views against Proposed Mercy Killing Legislation’ (1958) 42 Minnesota Law Review 969.
- Keown J, Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy: An Argument Against Legalisation (Cambridge University Press 2002).
- Leng R, ‘Consent in Criminal Law’ (1988) 13 Holdsworth Law Review 129.
- Mill J S, On Liberty (2nd edn, J. W. Parker and Son 1859).
Ayrıntılar
| Birincil Dil | İngilizce |
|---|---|
| Konular | Hukuk |
| Bölüm | Araştırma Makalesi |
| Yazarlar | |
| Yayımlanma Tarihi | 29 Haziran 2018 |
| Gönderilme Tarihi | 2 Mayıs 2018 |
| Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2018 Cilt: 6 Sayı: 1 |
