State of necessity in Turkish Criminal Law

In the understanding of modern criminal law, the principle of objective liability was abandoned and, instead, the principle of subjective liability where the factors affecting the crime are also taken into consideration has been adopted. Thus, on the basis of human psychology, the 'state of necessity' was regulated in order to allow an exemption from criminal sanctions under certain conditions for the crimes committed due to a threat imposed. The state of necessity requires the presence of a serious and absolute threat targeting a legally protected right, that is not intentionally caused. In addition, there must be neither any other ways to get protected nor any obligation to suffer from such threat. Finally, the perpetrator must have committed an act to an extent that offsets the threat in a way proportional between the severity of the threat and the subject and means used. The penal responsibility of the perpetrator would vanish only in case of the presence of all these conditions. The legal basis of the state of necessity is controversial in terms of the criminal law. Today, there are three different views available on the legal basis of the state of necessity. The first of these views takes the state of necessity as a reason for compliance with laws whereas the second view considers the state of necessity as a matter in extenuation (reasons for culpability) and the last view establishes the state of necessity as either a matter in extenuation or a reason for compliance with laws on a case by case basis. In our study, we examined the history, legal basis and conditions of the state of necessity by including the different views in the doctrine and various Supreme Court decisions in order to well reflect the practice, and put forward the differences between the state of necessity and other similar circumstances by making comparisons and the other specific regulations in the legislation.