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? v.11

There is no denying that ex-prisoners can become normal, productive members of society. Some people argue that allowing these people to talk to teenagers is the best way of discouraging them from breaking the law. I completely agree with this idea owing to its positive impacts on teenagers' view and absolute advantages over other educational methods. Perhaps the most important reason why reformed offenders are more suitable to talk to teenagers is their background, which make them and their stories more reliant than anyone else. Naturally, teenagers are more likely to accept advice from those who can speak from their own experience. Any wrong ideas about criminals leading glamour lives can be dispelled with the vivid and shocking nature of their stories. For instance, my school holds a course which is under the co-operation with local centers for ex-prisoners each year, and in this way, these people can tell teenagers about how they are involved in a crime, the dangers of committing a crime, and what life in prison is really like. Other alternatives to using reformed prisoners to educate teenagers would be much less effective. One usual option is that the police can visit the classroom and talk to students about the dangers of criminal lifestyles. This might be useful in terms of informing teenagers about what is waiting for law-breakers if they are caught, but young people are often reluctant to receive advice from figures of authority. A second option is for teachers to speak to teenagers, but I do not think that they are considered as a credible source of information. In conclusion, I tend forwards to the idea that choosing people who turn their lives around after serving a prison sentence is the best option to deter teenagers from breaking the law.