Is victimization always an issue that can be dealt with within the scope of law? It seems so at first glance. Because legal texts often tend to define the person who has been harmed by the crime as “victim”. Unfortunately, we can say that this trend is also effective in our daily lives.
In criminal law, the person who has been harmed by the crime is called the “victim”. However, in order to be a victim in daily life, it is not necessary to be harmed by a crime that has been committed. An unfair sharing, relationship or communication may also cause one of the parties to be victimized. Or you can emerge as a third-person victim of someone else’s power struggle, as in the saying, “When the elephants fight, the grass gets trampled.” In this case, you may find it difficult to find support on how to compensate for your financial or moral losses.
Life does not always flow normally. Sometimes, extraordinary developments can take us into its grip. In this case, we may be left as victims of a struggle that we are not a party to. Does it mean suffering? This is a difficult question to answer.
On the other hand, the legal system, which has the mission of identifying the victim and resolving the victimization, is itself turning into a source of victimization. In the face of such a situation, it is very difficult for the individual to overcome the despair that he/she will be exposed to. In today’s Turkey, we are watching with pain and anger the way the legislative, executive and judicial powers turn into a mechanism that produces victimization by ignoring the principle of separation of powers and almost as if they have made a consensus.
An individual, whose concrete ways out has been blocked to a large extent, may seek the remedy in depressive behaviors or in reactive behaviors that may cause him to get involved in criminal processes. In this case, the individual may have to be thrown into a new victimization adventure (but this time because of his own mistakes). This must be an example of being in an unfair position in a case where he is right.
The biggest victimizations are those arising from the practices of the states. Because a state is a power which an individual who wishes to get his life in order wants to trust blindly. And almost no one takes into account the possibility that he or she could be harmed by this power.
At this point, the issues that are “somehow” inserted into the field of law by the state power turn into a system that creates victimization. The most common form of this is that the state authority puts the pressure on us because of our political stance or identity. The “biased” attitude of the state towards the actions that it deems objectionable in terms of its own existence and well-being or the situations arising from the identities of the individuals (religious, racial, belonging) may be sufficient for the emergence of a picture of victims and victimizations. In such a situation, there is no way out for individuals to defend themselves (ie not to be victimized) against the state power. Because the regime, which develops the perception of threat through identities and personalities, has already taken the law under its tutelage.
A legal system under the tutelage of the regime, on the other hand, will/will contribute to the formation of new victimization itself as a system, let alone the elimination of victimizations. Today in Turkey, it is possible to encounter examples of this among almost every family, their relatives or neighbors.
Ultimately, crime is a legal concept. The definition and explanation of the crime has been done extensively in law texts and legal doctrine. However, in accordance with the spirit of the time, some nuances may arise in the field of law and naturally in the definition of crime. It is even possible to see the effects of the political currents of the period in the formation of these nuances. However, this process of change and metamorphosis should never be allowed to be influenced by the interest-oriented perspectives of political powers. Otherwise, the law will be subordinated to politics, in which case neither the society’s need for justice can be met nor the individual’s trust in justice can be ensured.
Mağduriyetten kaynaklanan hak kayıpları hukuk alanında kısmen tazmin edilebilir. Kanunlarla belirlenen suç tanımı bağlamında, hakkı ihlal edilenin “mağduriyeti” ceza veya idare hukukunun belirlediği sınırlar içinde “tazmin edilir” ve “somut”a indirilir. Başka bir deyişle, fail ceza hukukuna göre cezalandırılabilir veya “manevi” tazminat ödenebilir. Failin cezalandırılmasının veya manevi tazminatın mağdurun psikolojik yaralarını ne ölçüde iyileştireceğini önceden kestirmek mümkün değildir. Ancak şimdilik, hukuk sisteminin topluma adaleti sağlamasını sağlamanın başka bir işlevsel yolu yok.
Mağdurların ve hak kayıplarının tazmin edilmesi için yasa dışı meşru yol ve yöntemleri hayatımıza dahil etme arayışına devam etmeliyiz.
