I'm so caught in the middle of a couple of apparently unrelated recent controversies.

The first revolves around the arrested five year old. This has sparked a debate about the treatment of juvenile offenders, and most debate centers around two camps:

• Camp A: The child is a "victim of society" and should be coddled at all costs
• Camp B: No second chances. They knew what they were doing before they did it

Let me state outright that I disagree vehemently with BOTH camps. Children who offend must be held responsible for their actions, and they must understand the full implications of what they have done. To deny them this is to deny them the all important learning process that helps us to become larger than the sum of our mistakes.

By the same token, we must stop discarding children as worthless based on a reckless past. A child raised in a culture of violence and destruction knows no other world; it is our responsibility to teach it to them so that, once released, they may become productive citizens.

As an ex-felon, I shudder to think what would have happened if the judge chose either option. The prosecutor wanted me put away for 20 years (a TREMENDOUSLY excessive sentence by any standards); my "public pretender" wanted me to walk with time served. The judge wisely chose the course that would allow me to be properly rehabilitated into society, and I am a MUCH better man for it.

The second topic is that of the duties of aid societies to aid recipients. Again, I can identify two prominent camps:

• Camp A: coddle them and hold their hand, making their decisions for them
• Camp B: Tough shit. Throw 'em out on the street, and if they can't find their own way, screw 'em.

And again, I am equally disgusted with both sides. Not all of us have families to go to to make those difficult decisions in life, and clergy are disassociating themselves with those duties further and further (hell, in some churches today, you're lucky if your pastor knows your first name). Somebody needs to be there to fill in the gaps.

Again I will reference personal experience on this: when starting out on my own, after being released from jail, I was given a whole salmon at the food bank. Frankly, I had absolutely no idea how to cook a salmon. I did know enough to call several friends and find the answer, rather than waste the fish.

You can't assume everyone else has your level of education or advantages in life. Some have family; others' families are counterproductive to their living a good and decent life, and the individuals shouldn't have to go back to the mire that their families continue to wallow in.

The answer to both scenarios, I believe, is to learn what it's like to be a friend, especially to those whom you find least appealing. They usually need it the most. It's not about some mamby pamby "kinder, gentler, nation", but about the concept of COMMUNITY, and by realizing that we, as a society, are only as strong as our weakest link.