Prosecutors’ Position and Its Impact on How Proceedings Are Conducted: A Comparison of German and Turkish Criminal Procedure

Abstract

The rule for criminal procedure is the principle of compulsory prosecution. However, the principle of compulsory prosecution has been argued to have drawbacks in terms of modern crime policy due to a certain benefit being expected from today’s crime policy. Because public prosecutors conduct proceedings on behalf of the public, prosecutors as a rule have no discretionary authority. However, legislators have given discretionary power to public prosecutors regarding certain crimes for various reasons. The public prosecutor is the one who will evaluate the value of each piece of evidence and the existence of sufficient suspicion to reach a verdict in a trial. The aim of this study is to determine the position of prosecutors, who are equipped with important discretionary powers, in terms of criminal procedure. The study includes the regulations and discussions regarding Turkish and German criminal procedure, comparatively examining their differences in terms of authority between prosecutors in the classical and modern criminal process, prosecutors’ discretionary power and its limits, and finally the regulations in which prosecutors can use discretionary power.

Keywords

• Prosecutor
• classical criminal procedure
• modern criminal procedure

References

1. Aygörmez Uğurlubay GA, Haydar N and Korkmaz M, ‘Serî Muhakeme Usûlüne İlişkin Sorunlar’ (2019/2) ASBÜ Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 255. google scholar
2. Baytaz B, ‘Seri Muhakeme Usulü’ (2020) 8(2) Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi-Journal of Penal Law and Criminology 227. google scholar
3. Beulke W and Swoboda S, Strafprozessrecht (15. Aufl., C. F. Müller 2020). google scholar
4. Beulke W, in Die Strafprozessordnung und das Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz: Grosskommentar / Löwe-Rosenberg (27. Aufl., De Gruyter 2022). google scholar
5. Billis E, Die Rolle des Richters im adversatorischen und im inquisitorischen Beweisverfahren (Band S 151, Schriftenreihe des Max-Planck-Instituts für auslandisches und internationales Strafrecht 2015). google scholar
6. Burke AS, ‘Prosecutorial Agnosticism’ (2010) 8 Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 79. google scholar
7. Burton M, Sanders A, Young R and Cammiss S, Criminal Justice (Oxford University Press 2021). google scholar
8. Centel N, ‘Adil Yargılanma Hakkı İle Silahların Eşitliği Bağlamında Savcılık ve Savunma (Bir Adli Organ Olarak Savcılık Sempozyumu)’ (2006) Türkiye Barolar Birliği Yayınları 195. google scholar

9. Danner AM, ‘Prosecutorial discretion and legitimacy’ (Guest Lecture Series of the Office of the Prosecutor- 13 June 2005) 97 (510) American Journal of International Law 510. google scholar
10. de Wıtt H, ‘Anmerkungen zum Problem Ladendiebstahl’ in: Armin Schoreit (Ed.), Problem Ladendiebstahl, moderner Selbstbedienungsverkauf und Kriminalitat (Heidelberg 1979) 95. google scholar
11. Diemer H, in Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung (KK-StPO/Diemer) (8. Aufl., C.H. Beck 2019). google scholar
12. Eicker A, ‘Zum Vorentwurf für eine gesamtschweizerische Strafprozessordnung - Staatsanwaltschaftliche Kompetenz-Konzentration und ihre Kompensationsmöglichkeiten im Ermittlungsverfahren’ in: AJP (2003) 19. google scholar
13. Erdem MR and Şentürk C, ‘Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda Yeni Bir Kurum Olarak Seri Muhakeme Yöntemi (CMK m.250)’ (2019) 14 (41) CHD 573. google scholar
14. Fish ES, ‘Against Adversary Prosecution’ (2018) 103 Iowa Law Review 1419. google scholar
15. Gercke B, in Gercke/Temming/Zöller Heidelberger Kommentars zur Strafprozessordnung (HK-StPO) (7. Aufl.. C.F. Müller 2023). google scholar
16. Gökcan HT, ‘Cumhuriyet Savcısının Delilleri Değerlendirme Yetkisi Ve Yargıtay Uygulaması’ (2012) Ankara Barosu Dergisi 195. google scholar
17. Gökcen A, Balcı M, Alşahin ME and Çakır K, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (5th ed., Adalet Yayınevi 2021). google scholar
18. Green BA and Roiphe R, ‘Can the President Control the Department of Justice?’ (2018) 70 Alabama Law Review 1. google scholar
19. Green BA and Zacharias FC, ‘Prosecutorial Neutrality’ (2004) Wisconsin Law Review 837. google scholar
20. Green BA, ‘Access to Criminal Justice: Where Are the Prosecutors?’ (2016) 3 Texas A&M Law Review 515. google scholar
21. Green BA, ‘Prosecutorial Discretion: The Difficulty and Necessity of Public Inquiry’(2019) 123 (589) Dıckınson Law Revıew. google scholar
22. Gygi F, Verwaltungsrecht Eine Einführung (Bern 1986). google scholar
23. Hafelin U, Müller G and Uhlmann F, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht (5.Aufl., Schulthess Juristische Medien AG 2006). google scholar
24. Hansjakob T, ‘Zahlen und Fakten zum Strafbefehlsverfahren’ in: forumpoenale 3 (2014) 160. google scholar
25. Karakehya H and Arabacı M, ‘Cumhuriyet Savcısının Hukuki Statüsü, Muhakemedeki Taraf Pozisyonu ve İspat Yükünün Bulunması Üzerine’ (2016) 65(4) AÜHFD 2059. google scholar
26. Kelep Pekmez T, ‘Ceza Muhakemesinde Objektif Bir Taraf Olarak Savcılık Makamı’ (2021) 7 (2) Anadolu Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 275. google scholar
27. Keyman S, Ceza Muhakemesinde (Asıl Ceza Muhakemesinde) Savcılık (Ankara 1970). google scholar
28. Kleinfeld J, ‘Two Cultures of Punishment’ (2016) 68 (5) Stanford Law Review 933. google scholar
29. Koh SY, ‘Reestablishing the Federal Judge’s Role in Sentencing’ (MLA 8th ed. March 1992) 101 (5) Yale Law Journal (HeinOnline) 1109. google scholar
30. Konuralp CS, Alternatif Uyuşmazlık Çözüm Yolları: Tahkim (İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul 2011). google scholar
31. Kunter N, Muhakeme Hukuku Dalı Olarak Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (8th ed., İstanbul 1986). google scholar
32. Kunter N, Yenisey F and Nuhoğlu A, Muhakeme Hukuku Dalı Olarak Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (16th edn., Beta Yayınları 2008). google scholar
33. Kühne HH, Strafprozessrecht (9. Aufl., Heidelberg 2015). google scholar
34. Levine KL and Wright RF, ‘Prosecution in 3D’ (2012) 102 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1119. google scholar
35. Meraklı S, Cumhuriyet Savcısının Kamu Davası Açmada Takdir Yetkisi (Seçkin 2014). google scholar
36. Moldenhauer G, in Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung (KK StPO/Moldenhauer) (8. Aufl., C.H. Beck, 2019). google scholar
37. Ortaylı İ, ‘Kadı (Osmanlı Devleti’nde Kadı)’ (2001) 24 DİA, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları 69. google scholar
38. Özbek MS, Alternatif Uyuşmazlık Çözümü (Yetkin Yayınları 2009). google scholar
39. Özbek VÖ, Doğan K and Bacaksız P, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (14th ed., Seçkin 2021). google scholar
40. Özen M, ‘Cumhuriyet Savcısı’nın Takdir Yetkisi’ (2009) 13(3-4) Erzincan Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi (EÜHFD) 41. google scholar
41. Öztürk B, ‘Türkiye’nin Yeni Savcı Modeli Ve Adil Yargılanma’ in: Eric Hilgendorf and Yener Ünver (eds.), Prof. Dr. Köksal Bayraktar’a Armağan (Alman - Türk Karşılaştırmalı Ceza Hukuku) (2010) 3 (17) Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları 819. google scholar
42. Öztürk B, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda Koğuşturma Mecburiyeti (Ankara 1991). google scholar
43. Öztürk B, Nazari ve Uygulamalı Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (15th ed., Seçkin 2021). google scholar
44. Plöd JM, in KMR - Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, (Carl Heymanns Verlag 2015). google scholar
45. Roxin C, Rechtsstellung und Zukunftsaufgaben der Staatsanwaltschaft (DRiZ 1969) 985. google scholar
46. Roxin C and Schünemann B, Strafverfahrensrecht (29. Aufl. München 2017). google scholar
47. Schmitt B, in Meyer-Gofiner/Schmitt Strafprozessordnung (65. Aufl., C.H. Beck 2022). google scholar
48. Schroeder FC and Verrel T, Strafprozessrecht (6. Aufl. München 2014). google scholar
49. Stadler H, Das Ermessen der Staatsanwaltschaft im abgekürzten Verfahren nach dem Entwurf des Bundesrates zu einer Schweizerischen Strafprozessordnung (E StPO) (Masterarbeit, Klasse Forensik II 2007). google scholar
50. Şahin C and Göktürk N, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku I (12th ed., Seçkin 2021). google scholar
51. Şahin C, Ceza Muhakemesinde İspat (Yetkin Yayınları 2001). google scholar
52. Temiz Gül Y, Ceza Hukukunda Alternatif Uyuşmazlık Çözüm Yolları (2nd ed., Adalet Yayınları 2021). google scholar
53. Thommen M, ‘Gerechtigkeit und Wahrheit im modernen Strafprozess’ in: recht (2014) 264. google scholar
54. Thommen M, Kurzer Prozess -fairer Prozess? Strafbefehls- und abgekürzte Verfahren zwischen Effizienz und Gerechtigkeit (Stampfli 2013). google scholar
55. Tosun Ö, ‘Ceza Davasının Açılmasında Sistemler’ (1969) 34(1-4) İHFM 42. google scholar
56. Turgut H, Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Yargı Eteği Ve Hakimin Vasıfları (Adalet Yayınevi 2019). google scholar
57. Ünver Y and Hakeri H, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku ( 15th ed., Adalet Yayınevi 2019). google scholar
58. Wagner H, ‘Ziele des Strafprozesses?’ in: Andreas Hoyer (Ed.), Gedachtnisschrift für Jörn Eckert (Baden-Baden 2008) 939. google scholar
59. Weigend T, ‘Unmittelbare Beweisaufnahme - ein Konzept für das Strafverfahren des 21. Jahrhunderts?’ in: Henning Ernst Müller, Günther M. Sander and Helena Valkova (eds.), Festschrift für Ulrich Eisenberg zum 70. Geburtstag (München 2009) 660. google scholar
60. Weigend T, ‘Verstandigung in der Strafprozessordnung - auf dem Weg zu einem neuen Verfahrensmodell?’ in: Rene Bloy (Ed.), Gerechte Strafe und legitimes Strafrecht (Festschrift für Manfred Maiwald zum 75. Geburtstag) (Berlin 2010) 829. google scholar
61. Weigend T, ‘Why have a Trial when you can have a Bargain?’ in: Antony Duff, Lindsay Farmer, Sandra Marshall and Victor Tadros (eds.), Judgment and Calling to Account (Hart Publishing, Oxford/Portland 2006) 208. google scholar
62. WeBlau E and Deiters M, in Systematischer Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung (SK-StPO) (5. Aufl., Carl Heymanns 2016). google scholar
63. Wesslau E, Das Konsensprinzip im Strafverfahren - Leitidee für eine Gesamtreform? (Nomos, Baden-Baden 2002). google scholar
64. Widmer U, Reise an den Rand des Universums (Diogenes Verlag 2013). google scholar
65. Wohlers W, ‘Das Strafverfahren in den Zeiten der “Eilkrankheit”’ in: NJW (2010) 2470. google scholar
66. Yenisey F and Nuhoğlu A, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku (11th ed., Seçkin 2023). google scholar
67. Yenisey F, ‘Ceza Muhakemesi Süjelerinin İradelerinin Ceza Muhakemesinin Yürüyüşüne Etkisi Sorunu (Consensual Criminal Procedures and Teir Infuence on Criminal Prosecutions)’, Prof. Dr. Nur Centel’e Armağan (2013) 19 (2) Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi 453. google scholar
68. Yıldırım A, ‘Savcılık Kurumu ve Cumhuriyet Başsavcılarının Cumhuriyet Savcıları Üzerindeki Denetim ve Gözetim Yetkisi’, (2013) (47) Adalet Dergisi. google scholar
69. Zafer H, ‘Türk Ceza Adalet Sisteminde Savcılığın Hukuki Statüsü’ in: Nur Centel (Ed.), Koç Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Araştırma Konferansları Serisi 1 (İstanbul 2015). google scholar