Retrospective study of patients applied to Düzce University department of forensic medicine for the purpose of assessing criminal liability

Aim: Evaluation of criminal responsibility is an evaluation that enables the definition of whether a person is at fault in cases where he/she should be punished for the crime committed. Article 32 of the Turkish Penal Code covers situations where a person cannot perceive the meaning and consequences of the act he/she has committed due to mental illness or weakness, or lacks the ability to willpower regarding the act he/she has committed, and Article 34 covers situations where criminal liability is abolished due to a temporary reason, involuntarily consumed alcohol or substance. Evaluations regarding these items are made by physicians appointed by the judicial authorities as medical experts in our country. In order to make this evaluation in our study, cases aged 18 and over as of the crime dates referred to our Board of Forensic Medicine Experts through our Department of Forensic Medicine in 2021-2023; It is aimed to analyze the cases by retrospectively evaluating parameters such as sociodemographic data, crime type, and psychiatric diseases. Materials and Methods: Our study is a retrospective study and includes cases aged 18 and over as of the date of the crime who applied to Düzce University Department of Forensic Medicine between 01.01.2021 and 31.12.2023 for the evaluation of criminal responsibility. In our study, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the cases, acts alleged to constitute a crime, the place where the crimes were committed, the relationship between the perpetrator of the crime and the victim, characteristics of the judicial process, and forensic examination findings were evaluated. Numerical results in the data were evaluated as arithmetic mean and standard deviation, and categorical results were evaluated as percentages. Statistical analyzes were applied in accordance with the distribution of the data in group comparisons. Statistical analyzes were evaluated using "SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) for Windows 26.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL)". Results: In the study, a total of 446 cases were evaluated in the relevant years, who were 18 years old and over as of the date of the crime, whose criminal responsibility was reached according to the report results, and whose file content was evaluated according to the parameters. All cases were evaluated with the determined parameters, and then the data were separated into those who benefited from Article 32 of the TCK and those who did not, and differences were determined. Among these differences, it was determined that the cases who benefited from Article 32 of the TCK were more farmers, committed more crimes through communication tools, were exempted from military service more often due to mental illness, their educational status differed, their mental illnesses differed, in terms of crime types, sexual crimes and property damage were more common, the rate of the victim of the act they committed was more frequent than the rate of being a first-degree relative, the rate of committing the crime in their own workplace was higher, and they were directed to the criminal responsibility assessment earlier. Conclusion: Although the results of our study are compatible with the literature, some results that have not been discussed enough in the literature have been reached. It has been determined that the sociodemographic characteristics of the cases referred to criminal responsibility show similar characteristics to many studies across the country. Considering the differences in situations such as detailed questioning of military service status, victims of the crime, the place where the crime took place, whether the crime was committed through a communication tool or not, it has been determined that focused studies are needed to reach more accurate results.