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?

It is believed that the ex-offenders who have reformed can offer youngsters the best example for them to realize the danger of breaking laws. From my perspective, I completely agree with the viewpoint. In my opinion, it is normally more effective for

teenagers

to learn through one’s experience than by simply accepting rigid consequences. Youngsters can be more interactive and devoted to the issue through the vivid experiences of those ex-offenders themself, and the nature of the story can form a detriment to preventing

teenagers

from breaking laws. By listening to the story, they can understand the peril of being a lawbreaker and

also

dissipate the unrealistic images of the crime leading glamorous lives. In

this

light, it can

also

be envisaged that through the opportunity to speak with ex-criminal, the implications it brings can be more powerful. Some

people

might argue that it would be more applicable for

teenagers

to be educated by governments than by

people

who were once criminals. It might be sensible in some aspects;

however

, though authority and educational institutions often organize activities about the danger of crime, it can be less persuasive when compared to education by reformed criminals themself. To exemplify, young

people

might be reluctant to take advice from authority and lack interest in the conventional content of those courses;

thus

it can be more effective for

teenagers

to learn the dangers of committing crimes by interacting with ex-offenders. In conclusion, I fully support the view that

people

who have reformed their lives can be avail to deter

teenagers

from committing crimes.