Element of result in criminal law

Result as an element of actus reus has to be built around a consistent definition relying on legal theories of conduct and legal substance of injustice. In this respect, result can't be considered as a "simple variation of conduct", "harm deriving from legally protected interests" or "condition of objective culpability". Natural-causation theory provides an understanding where result and conduct is constantly bound and every crime involves a result. Today this approach can't be embraced anymore. Depending on the nature of the crime result may be bound by the appearance of a conduct, nevertheless it's a distinguishable actus reus element on its own embodying peculiar characteristics. Certain theories of conduct utilize the notion of result outside the context of actus reus and thereby create incoherence within different doctrinal aspects of a criminal offence. The finalistic theory of conduct attributes a unique perspective on the notion of conduct and lets the conduct represent both the subjective and objective elements of a criminal offence. Furthermore, this theory distinguishes the element of result from a conduct and provides this element a theoretical comfort zone for expansion. In spite of all that, one has to implement different theories of conduct in order to support the element arguments of result in different result crimes. When the Armin Kaufmann school of injustice transforms the element of result into a condition of objective culpability, the value attached to the conduct is forced to solely carry all the substance of injustice on its own, thus endangering the essential principles of criminal law. A perpetrator's representation of "dangerousness" through the value of a conduct can't be deemed sufficient for the concept of result crimes. Without the appearance of a result, crimes of negligence can't be solely founded on a violation of diligence. Additionally, criminal attempts in result crimes can't be punished at the same level as a crime that has been successfully completed. Otherwise the principle of culpability and proportionality will be gravely violated. In this regard, the contributions of the finalistic theory have to be interpreted accordingly. Through a reasonable interpretation, the value of conduct shall found the conduct crimes, and the value of conduct and result shall hand in hand found the substance of result crimes. One has to bear in mind, when foreseen by the lawmaker, the appearance of a result doesn't just relate to the perpetrator, but it also corresponds to the victim, the public and the need for legal reconciliation. Therefore, one has to delve into the notion of result with its implications for practice as well as its doctrinal background. In the end, when the notion of result is framed within the context of an element, there arises ramifications for other subjects of criminal law. Notions such as conduct crimes, danger crimes, continuous crimes, as well as an act, element, attempt or participation in crime will have to be reexamined. One has to remember that the objective responsibility regime foreseen by the former Turkish Criminal Code (no. 765) has been abolished through the "result" perspective of the contemporary Turkish Criminal Code (no. 5237). Throughout our study, the proposed theoretical foundation of "result" is thereby supported by examples deriving from the Turkish Criminal Code (no. 5237) and comparative German Criminal Code, while relying on judgments by the Turkish Court of Cassation and the German Federal Court of Justice.