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?

That those who carried out a crime and became well-behaved people later are the most suitable individuals to warn teenagers about keeping away from acts of crime is a debatable issue. I totally agree that we should let children understand the adverse effects of committing a crime by inviting those who have been released from prison and become good citizens later to give advice to children.

First, having criminals talked about the bad influences of a crime is an effective method to help them reintegrate back into society without re-offending. If an offender can truly share their experiences with adolescents, then that individual might regret on what they have done and realize how negative a crime affects their lives. Therefore, they might have a desire for fixing their own faults and contributing to society.

Second, children have a tendency to listen to and follow those who speak from experience. For example, a teenager with good behaviour and doing well at classes sets a good example and seems to be admired and followed by their counterparts. In these days, teenagers have been facing a lot of problems with their schools, their relationships,…and sometimes losing their own motivation on life. That is the reason why the figure for young offenders have been rising. Therefore, it is necessary for them to be shared and sympathized by previous generations.

In conclusion, while there are opposite opinions about whether reformed criminals could give the best guidance to adolescents, I have no doubt at how effective this method could be.