İspat hukukunun esasları
Yükleniyor...
Dosyalar
Tarih
2005
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
İspat etmek, hakimi bir vakıanın varlığına ikna etmeyi başarmak demektir. Alman CMK, fiilin gerçekleştirilmesi, failin kusuru, cezanın miktarı açısından, yani kusur ve ceza sorunu açısından önemli olan koşulların tespiti için, delil elde etmenin sıkı biçimliliğini öngörmüştür (Sıkı İspat): ispat araçları ve kullanım biçimi sınırlandırılmıştır. Mahkeme, bütün diğer hususları Serbest İspat metodundaki mutad uygulamaya göre araştırabilir. Yani hakim, muhakemede herhangi bir tarzda vicdani kanı oluşturulabilir. Hukuk Usulü Muhakemesinden farklı olarak, ceza muhakemesinde, çarpıcı bir ilke olarak bir mahkemenin kararına ilişkin bütün önemli vakıaların herhangi bir biçimde ispat edilmek zorunda oldukları ilkesi geçerlidir. Fakat eğer bir vakıa aşikar ise, o takdirde istisnaen ispat edilmeye muhtaç değildir. Delil elde etme yasağı yanında, ispat konusu, ispat aracı, ispat metodu, nisbi ispat ve keza delil değerlendirme yasakları vardır. Zehirli Ağacın Meyvesi kuramı, hukuka aykırı delilden hareketle elde edilen delili de hukuka aykırı sayar. Özel şahıslar aracılığıyla hukuka aykırı biçimde elde edilen deliller de kullanılamaz.
Proving means to succeed in persuading the judge onthe existence of an event. The German Criminal Procedural Law envisages a strict formalism about obtaning the evidence in order to determine the conditions which are essential from the point of view of the realization of the act, delinquency of the perpetrator, the amount of the punishment, namely point under delinquency and punishment (Strict Evidence): the instruments of the evidence and their manner of usage are restricted. The court may examine all other issues according to the usual practice under the method of liberal evidence. In other words, the judge may constitute the conscientious opinion in any manner. Being different from the civil procedural law, in the criminal procedure a remarkable principal which is composed of the necessity of allessential events pertaining to the court decisionto be proved is valid. But, if the existence of anevent is obvious, as exeptional it isn’t necessary to be proved. Beside the prohibition on obtaining the evidence, there are also prohibitions about the subject of evidence, evidence instruments, the method of evidence, relative evidence, evaluation of evidence. The theory of The Fruit of The Poisoned Tree accepts that the evidence which is derived from an illegal evidence is also illegal. Even, the evidences which are obtained by means of private persons being contrary to law cannot be used.
Proving means to succeed in persuading the judge onthe existence of an event. The German Criminal Procedural Law envisages a strict formalism about obtaning the evidence in order to determine the conditions which are essential from the point of view of the realization of the act, delinquency of the perpetrator, the amount of the punishment, namely point under delinquency and punishment (Strict Evidence): the instruments of the evidence and their manner of usage are restricted. The court may examine all other issues according to the usual practice under the method of liberal evidence. In other words, the judge may constitute the conscientious opinion in any manner. Being different from the civil procedural law, in the criminal procedure a remarkable principal which is composed of the necessity of allessential events pertaining to the court decisionto be proved is valid. But, if the existence of anevent is obvious, as exeptional it isn’t necessary to be proved. Beside the prohibition on obtaining the evidence, there are also prohibitions about the subject of evidence, evidence instruments, the method of evidence, relative evidence, evaluation of evidence. The theory of The Fruit of The Poisoned Tree accepts that the evidence which is derived from an illegal evidence is also illegal. Even, the evidences which are obtained by means of private persons being contrary to law cannot be used.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
İspat, Delil, Maddi Gerçeğin Araştırılması, Sıkı İspat, Serbest İspat, Yasak Delil, İspat Yasağı, Zehirli Ağacın Meyvesi, Prooving, Evidence, Examination of the Fact, Strict Evidence, Liberal Evidence, Prohibited Evidence, Prohibition on Prooving, The Fruit of the Poisoned Tree
Kaynak
İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
4
Sayı
19
