Please help me to correct my essay. Many thanks

Some people who have been in prison become good citizens later, and it is often argued that these are the best people to talk to teenagers about the dangers of committing a crime. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

To a certain extent, I agree that several prisoners who become good citizens after being released from prison are probably the best people in order to have a conversation with the youngster about the dangers of committing an offence. However, I also think that there are other people appropriate for doing that.

On the one hand, I believe that reformed offenders are likely to become productive members of society, particularly in educating teenagers about crime. Obviously, they broke the law and had to undergo a period of time under prison sentences. Hence, it is the fact that they are the one who must accept the consequence of committing offence. With their experience, they possibly are practical examples which can warn the teenagers about the dangers of breaking the law. Moreover, from their failure, the young are taught about invisible unsafe temptation. For example, they may be implicated in super-profitable trade by criminals such as trafficking in weapons or drug without realizing its serious consequence.

On the other hand, I believe that close people around the youngster also play a vital role in assisting them with obeying the law. In fact, adolescents are occasionally impulsive. As a result, they are unable to control reasonably their behavior. Thus, guiding on the right path is what the elderly need to do for the young. For instance, parents force their children not to steal or use the stimulant such as drug which could lead them to receive strict punishment.

In conclusion, while good citizens who were prisoner have a positive effect on the teenagers about crime problem education, I do not believe that they probably do that better than the others.(280 words)