CYIL vol. 10 (2019)

CYIL 10 ȍ2019Ȏ THE COURT OF PEERS LOST IN TIME proves the wrongfulness of their conduct. Self-incrimination is governed by the Code as well. Self-incrimination comes from conscience, which internally commits the child to render themselves to the Court of Peers. The wrongdoer awaits a decision while comparing its outcome with that of their own conscience. 3.2 Forgiveness The middle segment of the Code can be considered the core of the normative regime. Undoubtedly, forgiveness has both an emotional nature and flexible normative frame. Forgiveness is an idiosyncratic consequence of misconduct. As a rule, it means an emotional change that the victim comes to feel toward the wrongdoer. Forgiveness can be understood as the victim’s emotional response to previous wrongdoing. Essentially, it signifies a fundamental metamorphosis in emotion. But it does not hold a single form in a semi-closed environment of the dormitory. Korczak constantly observes the real relationship between a child and the educator who has acted in a harmful way towards the child. A child’s reaction undergoes a metamorphosis, a mental process. The child gets offended, angry – they’re thinking ... They experience a moral anger with which they have to deal internally. The child contemplates again and gradually overcomes negative feelings towards the educator. According to Korczak, the victim forgives bad conduct, especially if they know of the educator’s kindness. 7 However, the victim’s forgiveness presumes a correlative transformation of the offender. The Code captures the detailed casuistry of forgiveness. It does not regulate forgiveness as an exclusively personal relationship. Forgiveness is radically institutionalized. Forgiveness metamorphoses into a dyadic relationship between the victim and the Court of Peers. The court, as a third party, usually enters into the personal relationship between the victim and the wrongdoer when a complaint is filed. As an instance of peers, the court is asked to resolve the matter. Alternatively, the child or the educator may accuse themselves. In each of the cases, the court is neither a direct nor indirect victim of bad conduct. It does not forgive the wrongdoer on behalf of the victim but rather becomes a participant in the relationship, acting in its own name. The court does not represent the self-complainant or enter into their rights. It takes no hierarchical position towards the victim or the wrongdoer. The court would lose its character of a peer institution that not only decides but also helps to eliminate disturbed relationships. Its “judicial” activities prevent possible vengeance or even violence among children. The Code sorts forgiveness into several sections. Forgiveness may be preceded by an authoritative opinion or by a court plea. The court does not make its own judgments in such situations. In the first case, the court thinks ( sąd uważa ) that the victim should not be angry at the wrongdoer. Section 40 of the Code imposes no moral commitment on the child to forgive the offender. The court encourages the victim to overcome negative emotions and focus on positive emotions. 8 Such emotion could be, for instance, compassion. In the second situation, the court pleads ( sąd prosi ) forgiveness for the wrongdoer. 9 The victim considers the consequences of the wrongdoing without the necessity of forgiveness. Such a child must

7 Ibidem , p. 42: “Wybaczą, gdy znają życzliwość.” 8 Ibidem , p. 184: “Sąd uważa, że B nie powinien gniewać się na A.” 9 Ibidem : “Sąd prosi, by przebaczono.”

171