Abstract
AMAÇ: Adli Tıp Kurumu Belge İnceleme Şubesinde rutin uygulamalar esnasında dava dosyalarının ilk gelişinde azımsanmayacak sayıda olguya kesin sonuçlu rapor düzenlenemediği tespit edilmiştir. Yaşanan bu olumsuzlukları ortadan kaldırmak veya en aza indirmek gayesiyle problemin nedeni veya nedenlerini ortaya koymak istenmiştir. Öncelikle adli birimlerden kaynaklanan problemleri ortaya koymaya yönelik bir çalışma yapılması planlanmıştır. YÖNTEMLER: Çalışmaya Cumhuriyet savcılıkları ve mahkemeler tarafından incelenmesi için gönderilen, kesin sonuçlu rapor düzenlenemeyen ve basit rastgele örneklem yapılarak seçilen 1000 dosya dâhil edilmiştir. Yazı ve/veya imza incelemesi amacı ile gönderilmiş 907 dosya ve yazı ve/veya imza incelemesi dışında kalan sahtecilik vs incelemesi amacı ile gönderilmiş 93 dosya, tarafımıza gönderilmiş olduğu adliyedeki birim, geldiği yer ve yeniden belge isteme nedenlerine göre değerlendirilmiştir. BULGULAR: Yazı ve/veya imza incelemesi amacı ile gönderilmiş dosyalarda; adliyedeki birime göre dosyaların geldiği yerler arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık saptanmıştır p
References
- Akçıl M. Forgery crime on formal document [in Turkish] Gümrük Dünyası Dergisi 2005,45:24-30.
- Sen E. Penal Judgement Process [in Turkish]. Journal of Turkish Bar Association 2011;97:269-300.
- The State Supervisory Council, Presidency of Turkish Repub- lic. Report on Inspection of 2007, 2008, 2009 Services and Activ- ities of The Council of Forensic Medicine of Turkey, and Provid- ing Effectiveness and Abundance to the Services of The Council of Forensic Medicine of Turkey [in Turkish]. The State Super- visory Council Report, 01 July 2010, Report Number:2010/12.
- Kantarcı MN, Kandemir E, Baklacıoğlu F, Temur Y, Şahin E, Coşkun A. Evaluation of victims in document fraud signa- ture forgery . Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Law 2012;70 2 :59-70.
- Çelikoğlu CT. In terms of civil procedure law, advocate’s the power of gathering information and evidence in Turkish Law. Journal of Turkish Bar Association 2012 100 :281-316.
- Gökcan HT. Authority of public prosecutors on interpreting evidences and Supreme Court implementations [in Turkish]. Journal of Ankara Bar 2012 1 :193-206.
- Yücel MT. Archives of Law Phylosophy and Sociology, 25th book. Eskisehir Meeting. Turkish Justice System “Structural Analysis and Problems” [in Turkish]. Istanbul: Istanbul Bar Publicaions, Ege Press, 2012:211-24.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It had been determined that conclusive reports could not be prepared at first arrival for a considerable amount of the case files in routine practice. To eliminate or minimize these unfavorablenesses experienced, we wanted to demonstrate the cause or causes of the problem. First of all, we performed a study to demonstrate the causes resulting from forensic departments namely due to reasons beyond our control.METHODS: One thousand case files chosen with simple randomized sampling for which conclusive reports could not be prepared and sent by the Public Prosecution Offices and Courts for investigation were included in the study. Nine hundred and seven files sent for writing and/or signature examination and ninety three files sent for reasons other than writing and/or signature examination such as identifying forgery etc. were evaluated according to the department of the courthouse sending the document to us, the region sending the document and causes for demanding document. RESULTS: In the files sent for writing and/or signature examination; a statistically significant difference was determined between the regions according to the departments of the courthouse sending the document p
References
- Akçıl M. Forgery crime on formal document [in Turkish] Gümrük Dünyası Dergisi 2005,45:24-30.
- Sen E. Penal Judgement Process [in Turkish]. Journal of Turkish Bar Association 2011;97:269-300.
- The State Supervisory Council, Presidency of Turkish Repub- lic. Report on Inspection of 2007, 2008, 2009 Services and Activ- ities of The Council of Forensic Medicine of Turkey, and Provid- ing Effectiveness and Abundance to the Services of The Council of Forensic Medicine of Turkey [in Turkish]. The State Super- visory Council Report, 01 July 2010, Report Number:2010/12.
- Kantarcı MN, Kandemir E, Baklacıoğlu F, Temur Y, Şahin E, Coşkun A. Evaluation of victims in document fraud signa- ture forgery . Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Law 2012;70 2 :59-70.
- Çelikoğlu CT. In terms of civil procedure law, advocate’s the power of gathering information and evidence in Turkish Law. Journal of Turkish Bar Association 2012 100 :281-316.
- Gökcan HT. Authority of public prosecutors on interpreting evidences and Supreme Court implementations [in Turkish]. Journal of Ankara Bar 2012 1 :193-206.
- Yücel MT. Archives of Law Phylosophy and Sociology, 25th book. Eskisehir Meeting. Turkish Justice System “Structural Analysis and Problems” [in Turkish]. Istanbul: Istanbul Bar Publicaions, Ege Press, 2012:211-24.
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Forensic Biology |
| Journal Section | Research Article |
| Authors | |
| Submission Date | January 1, 2016 |
| Publication Date | April 30, 2016 |
| IZ | https://izlik.org/JA27SZ52LX |
| Published in Issue | Year 2016 Volume: 30 Issue: 1 |
