CYIL vol. 10 (2019)

CYIL 10 ȍ2019Ȏ THE COURT OF PEERS LOST IN TIME takes the sanctioning power away from the educator’s power in its plenitude. It also discharges the educator of the primary responsibility for deciding on the distinct consequences. Thanks to empirical knowledge, Korczak believes that a large proportion of dormitory or school punishment are quite unfair. He rejects thoughtless and cruel actions of the educator. Therefore, it is necessary to avoid punishments and retire them. He delicately acknowledges that every child perceives punishments very individually. One child suffers from a single glare of an adult, a coarser scolding, or a lightly expressed concern by the educator. His conceptualization of punishment is therefore fundamentally different from the tradition of sentencing children in a family or at school. The Code completely rejects the paradigmatic use of punishment. According to section 100 of the Code, the court does not forgive, but states that the child has committed what they are being accused of. 33 Korczak scrutinises the application of the norm, mainly from an emotional and not a punitive point of view. He believes that in such a case the court is a little upset with the wrongdoer. The children in the dormitory wondered if the rule imposed any punishment. Their doubts were mainly concerned with the consequences of applying the specific norm. The conceptualization of the norm is atypical because it does not declare any adverse consequence in the form of depriving the wrongdoer of their rights nor does it impose any burden on them. The norm presumes the application of moral authority of the Court of Peers that has decided not to forgive the child. The court is of the opinion that the child is the real master of their own conduct. The court rules that the misconduct has indeed occurred and finds its true offender. Conduct, as a piece of reality, is no longer open to any questioning or disputing. The child should acknowledge the wrongness of their action in order to change. No punitive measures are intrinsically derived from the Code provision. The consecutive sections 200, 300, and 400 merely provide for judicial recognition. The Court of Peers recognizes ( sąd uznaje ) that the child’s act is incompatible with the accepted social standards. According to section 200, the court recognizes that the child behaved wrongly. 34 The wrongdoer should intensively realize their own culpability. The judgment is meant to affect the child’s emotional state; encourage the child to perceive the situation in which the victim has found themselves due to the wrong. By then the court decides leniently because any child may become the wrongdoer of such conduct. The court rules amiably and appeals to the offender not to act so in the future. Additionally, the following provisions distinguish between bad and very bad conduct committed by the child. Section 300 requires that the bad conduct should not be repeated in the future. 35 Both norms assume a moral promise of the wrongdoer as an inevitable consequence of the act. In analogous situations, Korczak advises that the child be left alone and allowed to autonomously head towards personal change. The subsequent norm specifies very bad conduct. Provision of section 400 recognizes a higher severity of the wrongdoing. 36 Based on such an authoritative pronouncement, the child should feel heavily guilty. The wrongdoer must regard the act committed as something

33 Ibidem : “Sąd nie przebaczając, stwierdza, że a uczynił to, o co jest oskarżony.” 34 Ibidem : “Sąd uznaje, że a postąpił niesłusznie.” 35 Ibidem : “Sąd uznaje, że a źle postąpił.” 36 Ibidem : “Sąd uznaje, że a bardzo źle postąpił.”

175