CYIL vol. 10 (2019)

DALIBOR JÍLEK CYIL 10 ȍ2019Ȏ even dictate at what time the children have to get up in the dormitory. Neither does it forbid gathering in groups during lunch or in the bedroom past bedtime. Nor does it determine who and when to take the laundry to be washed. The norms of the Code mirror the basic ideal of Korczak’s pedagogy: he who does not love a child cannot raise him. The upbringing of a child must be based on love. Agapé pervades the standards, including the strictest social punishment: expulsion from the dormitory. 6 After all, the child may return after some time. Love of the child presumes the need to recognize the child’s individuality, to sensitively perceive all partial formation of his evolving personality. The individuality of a child relating to specific situations is projected into the individual standards. The Code strictly refuses to use collective guilt and punishment. This is because children justifiably reject being collectively charged. Innocents are thereupon forced to endure the consequences of a wrongdoing of one child. Their individuality and moral responsibility are deliberately eliminated. The Code, which has a tripartite format, is an incomplete order. Its norms are organized according to a casuistic key. The norms are intentionally not written in a stiff legislative language, nor do they recognize legal concepts and their consistent use in the text. The formulation of norms abounds in simplicity and clarity. The norms are built on logical unity of words, their cohesiveness and unambiguity. Their written articulation is situated on a philosophical background. After all, the norms are addressed to each and every child equally, as well as to the Court of Peers and to the Court Council. The norms also emanate a religious spirit. They manifest the ethos of upbringing and self-upbringing. The norms categorize bad conducts and set out how to deal with the social situation in the form of forgiveness or individual punishment. 3.1 Competence The introductory provisions of the Code delineate the competence of the court. First, it indicates the subjective and objective circumstances which led to the court’s resolution not to consider a submitted case. Subjective circumstances take into account the child’s own will. The child’s will is instrumental and ultimate when it comes to the resolution of a complaint. The complainant entirely controls their cause. Even after submitting a complaint to the court, the child still has the cause at their disposal. If they take the cause back, the court will stop dealing with the complaint. The victim, based on the withdrawal of the complaint, forgives another person who has wronged them. The standard incorporated strengthens the victim’s autonomous decision-making on the specific conduct of the blameworthy and its expected consequences. A distinct circumstance is the uselessness of a case that does not require forgiveness or any other consequence. At other times, the court is convinced that the wrongdoer is dissociating themselves from their act, they do not want to repeat it, and therefore refrain from a hearing. In other cases, the court does not know the material facts and circumstances of the cause, it cannot detect blame, nonetheless regrets that the unacceptable behaviour has occurred. In addition, the court praises, thanks the child when they summon themselves and accept responsibility for their own wrongdoings. The Code assumes that the child is both a witness and a judge in their own case, making the court’s jurisdiction redundant. The child personally 6 Ibidem , p. 24: “Chcesz usunąć dziecko, uznałeś to za konieczne dla dobra pozostałych. Proszą, aby go nie wydalać: może się poprawi?”

170