The Supreme Court did not consider the word "jackal" as an insult

According to the decision of the department, an argument broke out between the police and a person whose identity was questioned by the police in Izmir. A lawsuit was filed against the person who used the word "jackal" towards the police for "insult".

Izmir 10th Criminal Court of First Instance, which conducted the trial, sentenced the defendant to 6 months in prison within the scope of the crime of "insult", which is stipulated in Article 125 of the Turkish Penal Code.

After his appeal application was rejected by the 10th Criminal Chamber of the Izmir Regional Court of Justice, the defendant appealed the sentence against him, claiming that the decision was made without sufficient examination and without taking into account the mitigating circumstances and provocation provisions.

As a result of the review, the 4th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals found the appeal appropriate and overturned the conviction of the defendant by a majority vote.

One of the members of the department expressed a contrary opinion that the word "jackal" should be considered an "insult".

From the justification of the decision

In the decision of the chamber, it was stated that for the crime of insult, "the honor, dignity and prestige of people must be targeted", and in order for this crime to occur, "the behavior must occur with the aim of humiliating the person".

In the decision, it was pointed out that whether an action/movement is insulting or not is relative in some cases and may vary according to time, place and situation, and said: "Any severe criticism or disturbing words directed at people should not be evaluated in the context of the crime of insult, the words must clearly constitute an attribution of a concrete act or fact that may offend honor, dignity and prestige, or an act of swearing." evaluation was included.

In this context, the decision stated that the word "jackal" used by the defendant was an "disturbing, rude and uncivil manner of address" and noted that the elements of the crime of "insult" were not present in the incident in question.