Comparison of Turkish and English legal system
The main focus of this essay is to examining criminal law and justice systems. A court case study and relevant references will be used to support this essay. Legal systems can vary from country to country. Firstly, the most obvious difference between these legal systems is their constitutions. Turkey has a written constitution, however England does not. This clearly makes England unique, as most countries around the world have a set written constitution.
Secondly, the different types of courts between these two countries will be discussed and described. The aim is to find out whether courts have similarities and differences probably, however have slight variations. Case-study from each country will be used to highlight and assess the differences in terms of law and variation. In addition to this, this essay will also touch on the history of both legal systems. Both England and Turkey have great cultural and historically different backgrounds. England’s legal system comes from Roman law. However, Turkish rules of law derived from the Ottoman Empire, where they set Islamic rules into the grounds of their legal system. compare and contrast the Turkish and English legal systems. Issues for discussion will include national constitutions, type of courts, etc.
It is impracticable to entirely value the nature of officially authorized language without encompassing some awareness with its past record, there is no sole response to the query of how officially authorized language came to be what it is. As much of the clarification can be established in the past events which have left their spot on the language of English rule, we should first take a quick look at the past background of nowadays’ British officially authorized language. In the vein of their language, the rule of the British Celts had slight long-term impact on the English legal structure. (Bhatia 1983).
The Quran (the sacred book of Muslims), definite regulations and terms set by basis other than Quran, for instance Prophet Mohammed’s words which are known as the “customs” or “fatwa,” expanded and sometimes opposing terms and understandings are known in toto “The Islamic Law,” beneath which the Ottoman Kingdom was ruled right through the centuries.
Prophet Mohammed’s statements are universal codes of impartiality and fairness, with a high level of neutrality and fundamentally prime regulations required by the societal nature and arrangement of the Arab society of that instance. It must be stated that not only the Quran, but in addition the other basis of Muslim jurisprudence were fundamentally shaped to meet the desires of the society existing throughout and subsequent to Prophet Mohammed’s period. It must also be stated that right through the centuries the existence of diverse and conflicting spiritual sects amongst the Muslims in the region and the repeated augment of the part of non-Muslim civilians subsequent to the takeover of Istanbul by Sultan Mehmed the Defeater have shaped impossible complexities in jurisprudence. Furthermore, Islamic commandment was not wide and completely adequate to present logical answers to legal issues of every category. (Ayiter 1956).
Language reorganization, which is indeed one of the most extensively argued cultural issues in contemporary Turkey, is a concern openly connected to the officially authorized language used in Turkey nowadays. Kemal Atatürk, the originator of the contemporary Turkish Republic, intended at making a nationalist, worldly, populist and radical republic. Though, the Turkish language at that instance was Ottoman Turkish, occupied of many Arabic and Persian words which were looked upon as a shame because patriotism, the chief philosophy of “Kemalism” insisted on the pure origin of the Ottoman Language by restoring its foreign constituents with real Turkish words.
The common word for associates of the legal occupation is hukukçu and by graduating from a law university they can turn out to be a barrister, judge, noter or a prosecutor subsequent to period of internship mentioned in separate laws. (Altay 2002).
Private legal representatives expend 12 months of internship and then connect with a bar alliance (baro) and the Union of Turkish Bars. (Bowers 1989).
The court system of Turkish does not comprise the idea of jury, verdicts are concluded by judges or a board of judges, who have to bottom their verdicts on the law and their assurance. A judge is moreover a law school graduate and he can be one of the under mentioned:
§ criminal judge (wear a red colored collar),
§ civil judge (wears a green colored collar),
§ administrative judge (wears a light brown colored collar). (Danet 1985).
The foremost judge is helping at a penal court; these courts are alienated into assize court, punitive court of primary instance and sulh ceza (punitive court of tranquility). (Goodrich 1987). The second type of judge serves up at civil courts of primary instance or at civil courts of tranquility, whilst the last but not the least serves up in administrative courts (idari mahkemeler). The Utmost Council of Judges and Public Prosecutors (Hâkimler ve Savcılar Yüksek Kurulu) transacts with the entrance of judges and prosecutors of courts of fairness and administrative courts into the vocation, engagements, reassigning to other posts, the designation of impermanent authorities, endorsement to the first type, the allotment of posts; choices relating to those whose continuance in the vocation is found to be inappropriate; the obligation of punitive penalties and elimination from workplace. (Heyd 1954). The General Directorate of Personnel Affairs of the Ministry of Justice works as the secretariat of the Supreme Council of Judges and Prosecutors. (Gouadec 1990).
Public accuses are carried out by prosecutors (savcı), their complete designation is Republican Prosecutor (Cumhuriyet savcısı) and they have a principal office of trial (Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı). Prosecutors are furthermore separated into twigs concerning their part in laws, alike to that of the judges.
The judicial structure is made up of common law courts; focused serious punitive courts; military courts; the legitimate Court, the high court; and 3 other high courts. For unlawful cases, the Court of Cassation hears appeals; the committee of state listens to the appeals of administrative cases or the cases stuck between government bodies and the audit court inspects state organizations. The majority cases were prosecuted in the common law courts, which comprise civil, administrative, and criminal courts. (Izveren 1956).
The essential purpose of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Turkey (T.C. Anayasa Mahkemesi), recognized in the 1961 Constitution, is to inspect the constitutionality, equally form and matter of laws and verdicts with the authority of law and the Rules of practice of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (GNAT).(Melinkoff 1963). Additional operations of the Court are mentioned below:
§ In the capacity of the High Tribunal, the Constitutional Court judges the under mentioned: the President, associates of the Council of Ministers, associates of supreme courts, the chairman and associates of the Supreme Council of Judges and Public Prosecutors, the Chief Republic Prosecutors and the Deputy Republic Chief Prosecutors for offences linked to their workplaces. (Newmark 1988).
§ It also audits and inspects the funds of political parties.
§ It inspects GNAT verdicts to cancel the immunities of second-in-commands, or to fire associates of parliament.
§ It also selects the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Court of Jurisdictional Conflicts. (Morris 1995).
The Constitutional Court is formed of eleven standard and four alternate associates, verdicts are given when all the eleven associates are present. The verdicts of the Constitutional Court are last and cannot be altered in any way and their appliance cannot be deferred. (Weston 1983).
English law is the lawful structure of England and Wales and is the foundation of general law lawful structure used in nearly all Commonwealth countries and the US. (Yalçinkaya 1981).
Similar to everything else in Britain, British legal dresses are synchronized according to a innumerable of very old traditions, civilization and laws. A lot of of these regulations date back to no less than the 14th Century, forming the contemporary British judicial structure one of the globes’ oldest. The British legal bough is extremely multifaceted and is formed of number of diverse courts of jury with ostentatious names like the “Queen’s Bench” the “Chancery Division” and the “Crown Court.” (Özdemir 1969). Depending on which bough the judge fits in, he could dress in one of numerous different set of clothes, contrasting several other nations which restrict their judges to wear just black or red, in Britain judges dress in more or less every color. (Kenny 2004).
Every upper court justices in Britain dress in the eminent “full bottomed” crushed wigs while subordinate court judges dress in the shorter “barrister” wig. This is a relic from the time when judges were associates of the aristocracy and was assumed stylish for imperative populace to show off their societal status by wearing elongated elegant wigs. Once a year there is a unique ritual in Westminster Abbey through which all of the state’s judges meet to honor the start of the legal year. On official events such as that, all judges put on “full bottomed” wigs. (Judges around the world n.d.).
The majority British judges in addition put on a particular stiff white “cross” lapel, the exact beginning of this lapel (collar) are incomprehensible, but a few have wondered it was believed to symbolize the twin tablets of the Ten Commandments that were passed by Moses. (Sarcevic 1997). The identical collar is worn out by high-level clergy inside the Anglican Church, so it evidently has some shape of sacred origins.
Britain’s highest-position judicial bureaucrat and defacto Chief Justice is the Lord Chancellor, he puts on a exceptional gold and black dressing gown. (Tiersma 1989).
As fundamentalist Muslim nations tend to be a lot anti-Western, speaking gently, judges in these countries put on very simplistic dress, condemning modern courtroom out fits as a unfamiliar practice. (Timur 1956).
Altay, A. (2002). Difficulties Encountered in the Translation of Legal Texts:The Case of Turkey. Translation Journal. Volume 6, No. 4. July 4th, 2009. Retrieved from: http://accurapid.com/Journal/22legal.htm
Ayiter, F. (1956). The Interpretations of a National System of Laws Received from Abroad. Annales de la faculté de droit d’Istanbul . Istanbul:Fakülteler Matbaası.
Bhatia, V.K. (1983). Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
Bowers, F. (1989). Linguistic Aspects of Legislative Expressions. Vancouver; University of Columbia Press.
Danet, B. (1985). Legal Discourse. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol.1 New York: Academic Press.
Goodrich, P. (1987). Legal Discourse. Hong Kong: Mac Millan.
Gouadec, D. (1990). Terminologie Constitution des Donnés. Afnor: Paris.
Heyd, U. (1954). Language Reform in Modern Turkey. Jerusalem: Hadassah Apprentice School of Printing.
Izveren, A. (1956). The Reception of the Swiss Civil Code in Turkey. Annales de la Faculte de Droit D’Istanbul. Istanbul: Fakülteler Matbaası.
Judges around the world. (n.d.). Judges around the world. July 4th, 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.filibustercartoons.com/judges.htm
Kenny, K. (2004). Ireland and the British Empire. Oxford University Press.
Melinkoff, D. (1963). The Language of the Law. Boston: Little Brown.
Morris, M. (1995). Translation and the Law. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice Hall.
Özdemir, E. (1969). Yasaların Dili” (Language of Law). Journal of TDK. Ankara: TDK Publucations.
Sarcevic, S. (1997). New Approach to Legal Translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Tiersma, P. M. (1989). Linguistic Aspects of Legislative Expression. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Timur, H. (1956). The Place of Islamic Law in Turkish Law Reform. Annales de la Faculte de Droit D’Istanbul. Istanbul: Fakülteler Matbaası.
Weston, M. (1983). Problems and Principals in Legal Translation. The Incorporated Linguist. Autumn, Vol 22, No:4.
Yalçinkaya, N.K. (1981) Ingiliz Hukuku (The British Law). Ankara: Eroglu Matbaası.