CYIL vol. 10 (2019)

CYIL 10 ȍ2019Ȏ THE COURT OF PEERS LOST IN TIME A child against whom a complaint was filed or that summoned themselves to court could not be a judge. The impediment reflected the general principle of Roman law that no one can be a judge in their own case ( nemo iudex in sua causa ). The principle was one of the institutional constituents of the Court of Peers. The court itself was drawn by lot out of all the children who were not summoned to court. Demarchy (lottocracy) was the second constituent of the court. Judges were selected by sortition from eligible children. The draw established a five-member senate that dealt with only fifty cases. If there happened to be one hundred and twenty cases, three children’s senates had to be drawn. Judicial practice demanded procedural formalism. Each complaint had to be posted in a visible place on the court board. The name and surname of the petitioner and the summoned child had to be promulgated. The formal requirements were taken care of by the court secretary ( sekretarz ) who was an educator at the dormitory. The secretary did not judge, but administered individual cases. The secretary collected written and oral statements from the children and wrote them down in the court book. They read both written and oral statements during a court hearing. The secretary was also obliged to record judgments into the court book. In addition to procedural formalism, the principle of children’s participation was strictly applied in the proceedings. A hearing of the Court of Peers took place with a whole group of children in attendance, so that all the children could learn everything about the case. The presence of the children, albeit passive, also served as a means of control in order for the court to make impartial and rational judgments on the matter. Furthermore, participation filled an educational function. 4.2 Tasks Primarily, the court would rule on the good and bad conduct of the child. Principally, the judicial instance coped with banal affairs of indiscipline, e.g. when a child was constantly late, getting ahead of the queue or making a mess at the orphanage. These were examples of day-to-day indiscipline or disorder. Such behavior violates a social norm and disturbs order. The second task of the court was to take care of respecting the duties imposed. Children were not simply guided to accept social responsibility. Accordingly, the Code duties did not take precedence over children’s rights. Children’s rights were balanced by duties but were not derived from them. Children were obliged to educate themselves and learn to work. A child was meant to be beneficial to themselves, to another, and to the whole collective. The child was to remain its true self, but not solely for themselves. The third task of the Court of Peers was to take care of the peaceful coexistence of the children among themselves as well as children and educators together. Judges should have an interest in justice and equality being part of the life of the dormitory. Being a judge helped the child become familiar with justice from the opposite side, not just from the antagonistic position of a wrongdoer or a victim. Judicial decision-making enabled the child to perceive the wrongdoing of someone else, as well as the feelings of a vulnerable child. The exercise of judicial function could provide the child with the knowledge of how arduous it is to achieve justice. The court demanded that a bigger child not hurt a small one, and that a clever one not be conceited and mock a less intelligent one. The court should be benignant and good- hearted in its strenuous practice. Its decision-making focused on forgiveness and proactive consequences. The peer instance was supposed to contribute to the individual happiness of

179