t24.com.tr
Turkish Court Overturns Sentence in Earthquake Building Collapse Case
An appeals court in Adana, Turkey overturned the 62 life sentences plus 865 years given to Hasan Alpargün, the contractor of the Alpargün Apartment building which collapsed in the February 6 earthquakes, killing 96, because the conviction for probable intent was deemed unlawful; the case was sent back for retrial.
- What role did expert testimony play in the appellate court's decision?
- The appeal court found the original ruling unlawful because it included a conviction for attempted murder with probable intent, which is legally impossible in cases of probable intent crimes. The court considered a 46-page expert report from six Konya Technical University professors that concluded Alpargün's actions constituted reckless negligence, not probable intent.
- What was the legal basis for overturning the original sentence against Hasan Alpargün?
- The Adana Regional Courthouse of Justice's 18th Criminal Division overturned the 62 life sentences plus 865 years imprisonment given to Hasan Alpargün, the contractor responsible for the Alpargün Apartment building collapse that killed 96 people in the February 6 earthquakes. The court deemed the original sentence unlawful.
- What are the broader implications of this case for future legal proceedings related to construction failures and mass casualties?
- The case has been returned to the 12th Heavy Penal Court in Adana for retrial. The reversal highlights the complexities of assigning legal culpability in large-scale disasters, especially where expert opinions differ on the defendant's intent and level of negligence. This decision underscores the challenges in defining and proving 'probable intent' in cases with multiple contributing factors and significant loss of life.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the court's decision to overturn the conviction, potentially leading readers to focus on the legal technicalities rather than the loss of life and underlying issues. The headline and opening sentences could be interpreted as suggesting the initial conviction was unjust without fully presenting the case details that led to it. A more balanced approach would include more information about the original case and the evidence against the defendant.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and factual, reporting the events of the court case. There is no overtly loaded language, although the phrasing of the court's decision might subtly suggest an implied criticism of the initial conviction without explicitly stating it.
Bias by Omission
The provided text focuses on the legal proceedings and the court's decision, omitting potential societal and political contexts surrounding building regulations, enforcement, and corruption which might have contributed to the building collapse. It also does not mention the perspectives of victims' families beyond the mention of one individual, Dürdane Turhan. This omission limits a complete understanding of the broader implications of the tragedy.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by focusing solely on the legal arguments of the court's decision to overturn the initial conviction, without providing counter-arguments or alternative interpretations of the evidence presented. It implicitly frames the issue as a simple matter of legal technicality rather than a complex tragedy with multiple contributing factors.
Sustainable Development Goals
The court's decision to overturn the initial sentence highlights the importance of due process and judicial review in ensuring justice. The reversal suggests a commitment to upholding legal principles and ensuring that convictions are based on sufficient evidence and proper legal procedures. This aligns with SDG 16 which focuses on promoting peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, providing access to justice for all, and building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.