CYIL vol. 10 (2019)

DALIBOR JÍLEK CYIL 10 ȍ2019Ȏ environment where truth may be searched for jointly, though not always found by underage judges. Children make mistakes, and so too does the court along with them. The court is an atypical meta-juristic institution. The composition of the court corresponds with the network of social relations that should be established between children and educators and the children themselves. The court was founded for the moral equalization of children. Every child in the dormitory has the right to be recognized as a holder of rights. Until then, this formal recognition had not been applied extra muros , meaning anywhere else. The court was there so that every child can enjoy and exercise their rights without distinction. The Code provides every member of the children’s collective with the absolute right to bring their case to the court. 44 Any child had their own case at their boundless disposal. The court equalized the children in institutional care without placing them all to an identical position. After all, hierarchical ties formed especially on the chronological or social age of the child kept recurring in the dormitory collective. The court should negate such natural hierarchy: the social relationships of superiority and subordination among children. Instead, the court was to eliminate natural diversity, such as physical strengths or weaknesses. Equality should become an indispensable factor of life in the children’s home. Equality was not employed without exception. There were times when the educators and the court were helpless, their upbringing efforts missing the mark. The wrongdoer, although summoned to the Court of Peers, was unable or unwilling to change. They defied the principles. 45 Not even the offered support had any effect. All educational devices were failing. Such a child could be exempted from the generally valid prohibitions until they stated that they did not need the exemption anymore. The competence to grant exemptions was delegated to the Court Council. Additionally, the council could also decide on whether it was necessary to promulgate an exceptional case on the court’s board. 4.1 Demarchy The composition of the court was varied and unstable. It was completely dependent upon institutional conditions. The court was banned from making deserved or undeserved enemies of the children. That would jeopardize the friendly nature of the dormitory. Being a judge was in correlation with a social right and a duty. Such a duty could prove to be an unwelcome necessity and an unbearable commitment for a child. The right to be a judge gave the child power. As soon as the child became a judge, they took to making decisions with the other judges. The child acquired a new social role, became the bearer of shared authority, sometimes extremely unwanted. By way of collective decision-making, a child-judge could decide upon relationships between children within the dormitory’s environment. Despite their specific social role and exclusive position, some children tried avoiding the unpleasant duties and deliberately accused themselves, so they would not have to pass judgement. By doing this the heavy burden of making decisions in cases did not fall on them. On the other hand, there were children who just had fun with the new role without bearing its value and authoritative weight.

44 Ibidem : “Na tablicy każdy ma prawo zapisać swą sprawę: nazwisko własne i tego, kogo do sądu podaje. Można podać do sądu siebie, każde dziecko i każdego wychowawcę, każdego dorosłego.” 45 Ibidem , p. 178: “Ktoś jeden nie może się przyzwyczaić, ktoś jeden wyłamuje się spod prawa.”

178