Sentence reduction for husband who killed his wife with 13 scissor stabs!

Mensur Polat, who lived in the Sincan district of Ankara, went to the home of his wife, Lale Polat, whom he was in the process of divorcing, to discuss the division of property.

During the ensuing argument, Mensur Polat stabbed his wife with scissors and then strangled her to death.

It was determined that there were 13 scissor wounds on Lale Polat's body.

After the incident, Mensur Polat loaded the household goods into a van and fled, but was later caught by the police.

A lawsuit was filed against the arrested Mensur Polat, demanding an aggravated life sentence for the crime of 'intentional killing of a spouse with torture'.

UNJUST PROVOCATION REDUCTION

In his defense at the Ankara 5th High Criminal Court, Mensur Polat said, "I learned that my wife was seeing other men during our marriage. On the day of the incident, she told me, 'You cannot take care of me, you cannot perform as a man, I love someone else.' I committed this act in a moment of anger." The court panel initially sentenced the defendant Mensur Polat to aggravated life imprisonment for the crime of 'intentional killing of a woman and a spouse', but later reduced the sentence to 24 years in prison on the grounds that he committed the act under 'unjust provocation'.

"NUMBER OF BLOWS CANNOT BE PROOF OF KILLING WITH MONSTROUS FEELING"

The court's reasoned decision was announced. The decision stated that there were 13 cutting and piercing instrument wounds on Lale Polat's body, 6 of which were fatal, as well as 9 additional incised wounds. It was stated that the commission of the crime in a monstrous manner would not show that the killing was carried out with a monstrous feeling, and that the high number of blows struck to the victim would not be proof that the act was carried out with a monstrous feeling.

It was stated that in order to accept that the act was carried out with a monstrous feeling, there must be instances of striking blows solely for the purpose of killing the victim or striking blows to derive pleasure from their death. It was emphasized that in this concrete case, the defendant's actions were related to the execution of the act of killing.

"THE DEFENDANT BENEFITS FROM DOUBT"

The decision also stated that the defendant claimed his wife was seeing other men during their marriage, and that Y.T., who was alleged to have been seeing Lale Polat, admitted to this claim in his statement taken during the investigation phase.

It was stated that an argument broke out between the parties on the day of the incident while they were together for the division of property, and that Lale Polat used insults by saying, "You cannot take care of me, you cannot perform as a man, I love someone else, I will go to him, other men will take better care of me than you." It was stated that it should be accepted that he exhibited the act of killing as a result of a sudden anger and severe distress that developed in the defendant due to these words.

It was noted that since no evidence could be obtained to contradict the defendant's defense regarding how the event occurred, and considering the principle of 'the defendant benefits from doubt' valid in criminal proceedings, the conclusion was reached to apply the provisions of unjust provocation.

It was also emphasized that the defendant's acts of violence against his wife were not planned in advance and were a sudden reaction triggered by the victim's words.

"WE HAVE APPEALED THE DECISION"

Lawyer Nur Banu Satılmış, one of the followers of the case, stated that Lale Polat was strangled after being stabbed with scissors and said, "The local court also included the defendant's claims that Lale fought with him on the day of the incident and that she was cheating on him as a basis for the unjust provocation. We have no chance to prove the opposite of these claims. Because the incident took place between two people; one passed away, and the other is the defendant.

He made these claims to protect himself, to defend himself, and as far as he learned from previous examples, to receive the unjust provocation reduction. These claims of the defendant were found sincere by the court in accordance with the principle of 'the defendant benefits from doubt'. Yes, there is an institution called unjust provocation in the penal code.

However, we constantly witness men trying to hide under this guise with such one-sided claims, especially in trials, with claims that men often resort to, such as 'She was cheating on me, she insulted me, she cursed at me, she touched my manhood, she touched my pride.' Unfortunately, trials can also result in unjust provocation reductions in favor of men in this sense."

Satılmış stated that they have appealed the decision and said, "The file will go to the regional court of justice criminal chamber. An appellate review will be conducted there. After that, there is also the Court of Cassation stage. Of course, we will reiterate our objections. We hope that the appellate court will also accept our objections, remove the unjust provocation reduction, and continue the sentence based on aggravated life imprisonment again."

DHA

News Source: 12punto