Some people who have been in prison become good citizens later, and it is often agrued that these are the best people to talk to teenagers about the dangers of committing the crime. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some

prisoners

who have been locked up become model citizens later, and it is argued that they are the best individuals who can let adolescents know about the bad outcomes of committing the

crime

. I strongly agree with

this

statement because they have faced the consequences of the

crime

they have committed, and adolescents would be able to relate more with the real locked-up individuals.

Prisoners

have to face the adverse impact of the

crime

.

In other words

, they would have stayed away from their families

thus

they would be able to let teenagers about the pain of it.

For example

, a murderer in New Delhi had told in an interview that staying away from his children was the worst part of prison time.

Therefore

, I believe with the help of

prisoners

' stories teenagers would become aware of the adverse impacts of the crimes. Adolescents would be able to relate more with the real

prisoners

.

This

is because they would let them know about life inside prison, and

as a result

, young people might be able to think wisely before committing illegal activity.

For instance

, the Indian government, in 2020, started letting

prisoners

tell their stories to school and college students

due to

which criminal activities among pre-adulthood individuals have reduced drastically.

Hence

, in my opinion, letting criminals who have become model citizens talk to teenagers can reduce the

crime

rate. In conclusion, some are locked in prisons and become good citizens later, and it is being argued that they are the best people to let those in pre-adulthood make them aware of the harsh impacts of the crimes. I strongly agree with

this

statement because they have seen the adverse effects of illegal activities, and those in pre-adulthood would be able to relate more with them.