Some people who have been in prison become 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?

People have different views on whether reformed criminals are the best advisors about the consequences of breaking the law for adolescents or not. Personally, I totally approve of

this

perception because . Undeniably, ex-lawbreakers used to lead a criminal lifestyle, signifying that they know how miserable living in a cell is

as well as

the guilt they suffer after committing a crime. These individuals,

therefore

, can tell a more vivid and persuasive real story about their life compared to the monotonous educators, like teachers, police officers, and parents, who are reluctant to break a law and may just repeat what they hear from others.

This

may catch the attention of teenagers, as anything reformed criminals say never appears on the mass media,

not to mention

adapts the need for a groundbreaking educational regime for those who can do anything at a young age, without second thoughts. Given their public appreciation of the best crime educators, ex-prisoners no longer have difficulty in rehabilitating and so on dispel any wrong ideas of breaking laws among their surrounding people. To be more specific, officials should facilitate their progress not

in

Change preposition

by

show examples

obtaining criminal knowledge but

in

Change preposition

by

show examples

enhancing the way these advisors convey messages to teenagers.

Such

support can help reformed criminals become the ideal model of law-abiding citizens for countless juveniles. In conclusion, I contend that ex-prisoners solely become the best consultant for the youth once receiving the wholesome public support of fitting in with their neighbourhood.