{"id":30514,"date":"2026-01-18T18:23:45","date_gmt":"2026-01-18T15:23:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bicakhukuk.com\/?p=30514"},"modified":"2026-01-24T16:33:01","modified_gmt":"2026-01-24T13:33:01","slug":"disproportionate-operation-of-criminal-justice-system","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bicakhukuk.com\/en\/disproportionate-operation-of-criminal-justice-system\/","title":{"rendered":"Disproportionate Operation of Criminal Justice System"},"content":{"rendered":"

1. Introduction<\/span><\/h3>\n

Criminal justice systems in democratic societies are built on a delicate balance. On the one hand, they are entrusted with the task of combating crime and maintaining public order; on the other, they are constitutionally and normatively bound to respect human dignity, fundamental rights, and the rule of law. This balance presupposes that criminal investigation is an exceptional form of state intervention, activated only where there is concrete, individualized, and legally sufficient suspicion.<\/span><\/p>\n

In principle, the legitimacy of criminal justice does not derive from the quantity<\/em> of investigations conducted, but from their quality<\/em>: selectivity, proportionality, and alignment with human rights standards. Criminal law is traditionally conceived as ultima ratio – <\/em>a last resort mechanism -intended to address serious violations of social norms rather than to regulate ordinary social life. <\/span>Recent empirical developments in T\u00fcrkiye, however, suggest a significant departure from this paradigm. Official data published by the Ministry of Justice<\/a> indicate a sustained and substantial increase in the number of criminal investigations initiated by public prosecutors over the past decade. The scale of this expansion raises a fundamental question: has criminal investigation ceased to be an exception and become a routine mode of governance?<\/span><\/p>\n

This question is not merely statistical. At the heart of the issue lies the transformation of suspect status<\/em>. Being formally designated as a suspect is not a neutral procedural label; it carries legal, social, and psychological consequences. When this status is assigned to millions of individuals each year – many of whom will never be prosecuted or tried – it challenges core principles such as the presumption of innocence and what is increasingly recognized in human-rights doctrine as the right not to be stigmatized.<\/span><\/p>\n

The problem is therefore not limited to isolated cases of overreach or procedural error. Rather, it concerns the structural operation of the criminal justice system. When a system systematically produces large volumes of suspects while filtering out most cases at a later stage through non-prosecution decisions, the burden of criminal suspicion is effectively shifted onto society at large. In such a framework, exposure to criminal investigation becomes a common social experience rather than an exceptional legal event.<\/span><\/p>\n

This article argues that T\u00fcrkiye\u2019s criminal justice system is undergoing a crisis of proportionality and legitimacy. Drawing on official justice statistics, it demonstrates how the mass expansion of investigations has led to the normalization of suspicion, the erosion of the right not to be stigmatized, and a growing disconnection between criminal justice institutions and the society they are meant to serve.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The analysis proceeds in a step-by-step manner. Following this introduction, the article examines the normative foundations of criminal justice in comparative and human-rights perspectives, before turning to empirical data on investigation volumes, suspect ratios, non-prosecution decisions, victims, and children. It then situates these findings within criminological theories of social deviation and labeling, and concludes by assessing the broader implications for legitimacy, trust, and the future of criminal justice.\u00a0<\/span>At its core, this study asks a simple but unsettling question:<\/span>
Is the criminal justice system protecting society from crime, or is society increasingly being governed through criminal suspicion?<\/span><\/p>\n

2. Normative Foundations of Criminal Justice: A Human Rights<\/span><\/h3>\n

Criminal justice systems do not operate in a normative vacuum. Their legitimacy, scope, and limits are shaped by constitutional principles, international human rights law, and long-standing doctrines of criminal law theory. Across democratic legal systems, a shared normative consensus has emerged: criminal justice is a bounded form of state power, justified only to the extent that it is necessary, proportionate, and respectful of individual rights.<\/span><\/p>\n

2.1 Criminal Justice as a Limited State Power<\/span><\/h4>\n

In modern constitutional thought, criminal justice represents the most intrusive form of public authority. Investigation, prosecution, and punishment directly affect liberty, reputation, privacy, and personal autonomy. For this reason, criminal law has historically been conceived as ultima ratio – <\/em>a last resort to be used only when other regulatory or social mechanisms prove insufficient. <\/span>This principle is reflected in comparative legal systems in several ways:<\/span><\/p>\n