Abstract

This study aims to examine how assertions of kleptomania are reflected in high court proceedings and to evaluate their implications for criminal liability within the framework of Supreme Court (SC) jurisprudence. It further seeks to analyze the judicial reasoning underlying decisions to overturn or uphold cases in which kleptomania is invoked as a mitigating or exculpatory factor. A systematic search was conducted in the Supreme Court of Appeals (SCA) online decision database on August 19, 2025, using the terms “kleptomania” and “pathological stealing disorder.” Among 9,649,954 decisions, 71 were identified as relevant, and after excluding two that lacked sufficient descriptive content, 69 decisions were included in the analysis. Only descriptive statistical methods (frequency and percentage) were used. Of the decisions analyzed, 97.1% originated from the Criminal Chambers (CC) and 2.9% from the Civil Chambers (CiC). Appeals most frequently involved Criminal Courts of First Instance (CCFI) (85.5%). Theft-related offenses dominated the sample (89.9%), with kleptomania claims also appearing in a small number of divorce cases (2.9%). Convictions were the primary outcomes at the trial level (92.8%), whereas the SCA overturned these decisions at a high rate (81.2%). In over half of the cases (55.1%), kleptomania assertions relied solely on the defendants’ statements, while 43.5% were supported by medical reports. The most common reason for reversal was the failure to obtain an expert evaluation in accordance with Article 32 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) (62.3%). SC decisions indicate that uncorroborated claims of kleptomania are insufficient and that verdicts lacking expert assessment are highly prone to reversal. These findings highlight the need for multidisciplinary collaboration between legal and forensic professionals in evaluating kleptomania within the context of criminal liability.

Key words: Kleptomania, forensic psychiatry, Supreme Court decisions, criminal responsibility