Court explains low sentence in Isias Hotel case: They relied on their luck

In the trial opened against public officials regarding the collapse of the Grand İsias Hotel in the earthquake, the court panel sentenced the former Zoning Director Mehmet Salih Alkayış, Licensing Bureau Chief Bilal Balcı, and former Deputy Mayor Osman Bulut to 10 years in prison for the crime of "causing the death and injury of more than one person through conscious negligence."

The former Adıyaman Municipality Zoning Director Yusuf Gül, as well as Abdurrahman Karaaslan and Fazlı Karakuş, who worked in the licensing unit, were acquitted.

According to the report by Cengiz Anıl Bölükbaş from T24, the Adıyaman 1st High Criminal Court has released its reasoned decision regarding the case.

The Adıyaman 1st High Criminal Court explained the reasoning for sentencing the defendants for "causing death through conscious negligence"—which carries a maximum sentence of 22.5 years—rather than the "probable intent" provision that would have allowed for sentences similar to those for "murder," by citing the "luck" factor. In the reasoned decision, the magnitude of the February 6 earthquakes and the fact that such an earthquake had not occurred in Adıyaman before were cited as evidence in favor of the defendants. The court stated that although the earthquake was foreseeable, the defendants thought it would not happen and relied on their luck. For these reasons, the court stated that the actions of the defendants should be evaluated within the scope of "conscious negligence."

DIFFERENCES EXPLAINED

In the reasoned decision, it was stated that the most distinct difference between probable intent and direct intent is the element of knowledge in direct intent.

It was stated that the other element distinguishing probable intent from direct intent is that the realization of the elements of the crime is "probable." The reasoned decision included the following statements: "In such a situation, the perpetrator accepts the occurrence of the result, which is not certain but highly likely to happen, and takes the risk with the mindset of 'let it happen'; they do not make any effort to prevent the result from occurring. In probable intent, although it is seen as probable that the act will cause a result defined in the law, the occurrence of this result is accepted by the perpetrator."

Emphasizing that in simple negligence the perpetrator does not foresee the foreseeable result, whereas in conscious negligence they have foreseen it, the reasoned decision stated: "In conscious negligence, the result that occurs is not desired by the perpetrator even though it was foreseen. Indeed, the dangerousness of a person who acts by relying solely on their luck or other factors, or even their own skill or knowledge, while foreseeing the result, cannot be equated with the dangerousness of a person who could not foresee it. A person who foresees the result is obligated not to engage in the act that will cause this result, no matter what."

THE MAGNITUDE OF THE EARTHQUAKE WAS ALSO A DETERMINING FACTOR

The magnitude of the February 6 earthquakes and the fact that an earthquake of this scale had not previously occurred in Adıyaman were cited as the justification for sentencing the defendant public officials for 'causing death by conscious negligence' rather than 'probable intent'.

The decision pointed to the time interval between the dates the building permit and occupancy permit were issued for the Isias Hotel and the February 6 earthquakes, stating that a definitive conclusion could not be reached that they acted with probable intent.

In the reasoned decision, it was emphasized that the defendants carried out their actions hoping that the foreseeable earthquake would not occur or by relying on their luck. For this reason, the court concluded that the defendants' actions should be evaluated within the scope of 'conscious negligence'.