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 thought that the

people

who complete prison time and become better ones later are the best teachers to educate younger about the consequences of a crime. personally, I completely agree with

this

point of view. The young generation is more likely to accept advice from someone who speaks from his or her real-life experience.

Therefore

, ex-prisoners are always the best

people

who can share with teenagers the reasons why they became criminals.

For example

, Different prisoners have different stories and young

people

will know more about how harsh prison conditions are and how these

people

are really treated during their time in prison.

As a result

,

such

stories would be a red warning and prevent teenagers from engaging in illegal acts. On another hand, there are alternative measures to educate young individuals about the consequences of committing crimes, but, those methods are unlikely effective.

For instance

, teenagers can learn about the dangers of a criminal life by watching movies about crime and punishment, but these types of movies are more entertaining than educational. Another way would be for teachers to teach their students how a person will be punished after crossing the law.

however

, young

people

are less likely to be persuaded by stories from a person who does not have any real-life experience or a person of authority

such

as a teacher or policeman. In summary, in my opinion, I agree with the idea that ex-prisoner is the best choice for educating the young about the dangers of committing a crime cause of real-life experience and the less effectiveness of other methods.