CYIL vol. 10 (2019)

DALIBOR JÍLEK CYIL 10 ȍ2019Ȏ bear both the generosity and burden of their position. No norm of the Code imposes a moral duty on the child to forgive. On the other hand, the Code imposes a duty on the Court of Peers to forgive, on the condition that subjective or objective conditions are met. Thereafter, the court authoritatively decides in the cause. The court is obliged to forgive if the offender did not act with bad intent. Then the Code establishes forgiveness for the absence of knowledge or understanding of the wrongdoing. According to section 50, the court forgives the offender’s action as they could not know what they were doing or did not understand it. 10 The wrongdoer did not premeditate, intend, or prepare the wrongdoing. In relation to the future, the court makes an explicit hope that the wrongdoer’s conduct will not be repeated. The following provision governs forgiveness in relation to an inaccurate understanding of the situation. In such a case it could be the offender’s one-sided error. The court applied section 51 11 in the most common situation when a child was washing a bowl in a locker room where the order prohibits doing so. Similarly, the court could have turned its application attention to section 50. The application of norms has no absolute or strict form in the practice of the Court of Peers. The decision-making process was usually infused by judicial discretion. Section 52 also has similar assumptions as the rule embodied in section 50. According to the norm, the wrongdoer did not know or did not foresee what might occur as a result of their misconduct. 12 Their act is described, in a normative sentence, in a variable manner. The offender acted unintentionally or inattentively, has committed negligence, error, or omission. The court forgives even if the culprit inadvertently harmed the victim. The court also forgives an act committed intentionally as a joke. Korczak noted with care that one boy took a friend’s belt and refused to return it. The offender provoked the victim by laughing and running away. The victim was not able to accept such joking conduct from any child. He wasn’t in the mood for it. The court applied the rule set forth in section 54. 13 The court also forgives the offender by virtue of a set of mitigating circumstances. The circumstances in some respects resemble the letter of criminal law. Any conduct done in anger is considered a subjective mitigating circumstance. Section 60 even refers to the impulsive character of the wrongdoer. 14 The following provision denotes another character trait of the offender which supposes forgiveness. This formative feature is stubbornness of the child. 15 Bad conduct can stem from false ambition or from the child’s querulousness. These distinguishing qualities are separately placed in section 62 16 and section 63. 17 In all previous cases, the court anticipates the child’s ability to change. The judgment should lead to a voluntary and free change of character or at least to gain self-control. 10 Ibidem : “Sąd przebacza A, który mógł nie wiedzieć lub nie rozumiał, a wyraża nadzieję, że to się nie powtórzy.” 11 Ibidem : “Sąd przebacza A, który niezupełnie rozumiał, a wyraża nadzieję, że to się nie powtórzy.” 12 Ibidem : “Sąd przebacza A, który nie wiedział, że tak się stanie (zrobił to nienaumyślnie, przez nieostrożność, przez omyłkę, przez zapomnienie).” 13 Ibidem : “Sąd przebacza A, bo to był żart (głupi żart).” 14 Ibidem , p. 185: “Sąd przebacza A, bo zrobił to (powiedział) w gniewie, a jest porywczy, ale się poprawi.” 15 Ibidem : “Sąd przebacza A, bo zrobił to przez upór, ale się poprawi.” 16 Ibidem : “Sąd przebacza A, bo zrobił to przez fałszywą ambicję, ale się poprawi.” 17 Ibidem : “Sąd przebacza A, bo jest kłótliwy, ale się poprawi.”

172