Hukuk Fakültesi/ Faculty of Law
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/11727/1398
Browse
3 results
Search Results
Item The Principles and Procedure of Penal Mediation in Turkish Criminal Procedure Law(Ankara Law Review, 2012, Say.2, cilt.2011, s.153-220,, 2012) Özbek, MustafaMevzuatta yapılan son değişikliklerin yürürlüğe girmesiyle arabuluculuk, Türk hukuk sisteminde bazı suçlardan doğan uyuşmazlıkların çözümünde uygun bir alternatif hâline gelmiştir. Türk hukukunda öngörüldüğü şekliyle arabuluculuk, ceza adaleti sistemine nazaran, tüm ilgililer için daha iyi bir çözüm bulmada kullanılan bir yöntemdir. Bu makale, ceza arabuluculuğunun, mukayeseli hukuk, felsefesi, usûlü ve uygulamasını esas alarak yasal çerçevesini incelemektedir. Makalede, bu usûlün, genel olarak tüm tarafların ve toplumun menfaatine uygun olduğu tespit edilmiştir. With the passage of recent legislation, mediation has become a viable alternative for the resolution of some types of crime in the Turkish legal system. As envisioned under Turkish law, mediation is a vehicle to achieve a better solution for all concerned than is possible through the criminal justice system. This article examines the statutory framework for penal mediation, including the basis in comparative law, the philosophy, procedures, and practices in Turkish penal mediation. The article finds that this process is beneficial to all parties and society as a whole.Item Çağdaş Ceza Adaleti Sistemlerinde Alternatif Çözüm Arayışları ve Arabuluculuk Uygulaması(Kazancı Hukuk Dergisi, 2010, Say.1, cilt.-, s.116-183,, 2010) Özbek, Mustafaİşlenmiş suçların failleri ile mağdurları arasındaki uyuşmazlıkların çözümünde arabuluculuğun kullanılması, yirmibirinci yüzyılın başına kadar hukukumuzda üzerinde yeterli ölçüde çalışılmamış bir konudur. Mağdur-fail arabuluculuğu, Amerika Birleşik Devletlerinde doğan alternatif uyuşmazlık çözümü akımının (Alternative Dispute Resolution, ADR) bir parçası olarak, hızla büyüyen bir alanı temsil etmektedir. Geleneksel arabuluculuk uygulamasından belirli yönleriyle ayrılan mağdur-fail arabuluculuğunun işleyişi, kendine has bazı özelliklere sahiptir. Mağdur-fail arabuluculuğu ve yeniden uzlaştırma programları ilk olarak, 1978 yılında Amerika Birleşik Devletlerinin orta bölgelerindeki eyaletlerde görülmüştür. 1998 yılına gelindiğinde Amerika Birleşik Devletleri çapında 315 adet, Avrupa çapında ise 700 den fazla bu çeşit program kurulmuştur. Örneğin, Texas eyaletinin Dallas, Houston ve Corpus Christi şehirlerinde bu tür programlar bulunmaktadır. Texas Ceza Usûl Kanununda mağdur-fail arabuluculuğu, belirli davalarda denetimli serbestliğin bir geçerlik şartı olarak açıkça düzenlenmektedir. The use of mediation in penal matters has emerged towards the end of the twentieth century. As part of the larger Alternative Dispute Resolution movement in North America, the practice of mediation has grown recently. There are a handful of mediation programs in panel matters provided for in legislation in many parts of North America and Europe. These schemes are often called in the United States as victim offender reconciliation programs and in Britain as reparation schemes. However, they are known more generally as victim- offender mediation programs in the literature. The victim-offender mediation program brings together in a face-to-face meeting a person who has been convicted of a crime and the person or persons who were victims of that crime. In these meetings the parties meets in the presence of a third party in order to mediate some form of restitution whether financial or by way of services to be performed for the victims or community, and to achieve a reconciliation satisfactory to the victim, the offender and the representatives of the legal system. The concept of victim-offender mediation is a product of three contemporary movements within the criminal justice system. First movement is victimology. According to some new views, crime victims are placed in a totally passive position by the criminal justice system and therefore recent studies have focused on an increased concern for victims and their role in the criminal law. Second movement is about a growing dissatisfaction with established ways of punishing and treating the offender. This movement is a part of the restorative justice. Restorative justice focuses on the injury to the victim and the community, rather than to the State and seeks to replace retribution with restoration. Third movement is awareness of new alternatives to standard methods of dispute settlement. The primary aim of victim-offender mediation programs is to provide a dispute resolution process which is perceived as fairly both the victim and the offender. The mediator facilitates mediation, by first allowing time to address informational and emotional needs, followed by a discussion of loses and the possibility of developing a mutually agreeable restitution obligation. The victim-offender mediation process can be summarized by four distinct phases: 1) Referral/Intake, 2) Preparation for Mediation, 3) Mediation, 4) Follow-up. New Turkish criminal justice system started to operate on June 1, 2005. One of the novelties brought about by the new criminal justice system is penal mediation in criminal procedure law. It is important to enhance applicability and efficiency of provisions concerning penal mediation. Within the scope of Judicial Reform Strategy, it has been set as target that all aspects of penal mediation in criminal procedure law will be reconsidered, problems will be determined and necessary measures will be taken to solve the problems.Item Report on Alternative Dispute Resolution within the Context of Better Access to Justice(Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Prof. Dr. Bilge Umara Armağan, 2009, Say.-, cilt.11, s.453-507,, 2009) Özbek, MustafaA right of access to judicial protection meant essentially the aggrieved individual?s formal right to litigate or defend a claim. Access to justice is defined as to be able to easily access to justice by all segments of society and to provide them all kinds of means by state in order to seek right to judicial remedy by individuals and to inform effectively about the existence of these rights. Lack of efficiency in these facilities concerning access to justice may jeopardise public confidence to the judicial mechanism and therefore the state system.