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 argued that prisoners are able to accept their bad pasts and can be good for society by explaining to the youngsters the problems of the crimes.

This

essay totally disagrees with that statement. I believe that those who have been in jail are not the best to try to teach or educate, but less youth generation can be easily manipulated. I think even if they become good citizens people who have been in prison can not talk to teenagers about the dangers of crimes. In fact, they will probably talk with a subjective point of view, and even though they change, most of the time they continue to not recognise totally the bad actions they did. Because is important to know that to become a good citizen is to not do anything bad at the time.

On the contrary

, it is not the same as accepting their crimes and being arrepentido.

For instance

, Carles Tamayo, a Spanish journalist created a documentary named "Como caza a un monstruo” where a man who has been in prison for 24 years for the violation of minors talks about his crime.

However

, he does not recognise the crime even though he is a good citizen now. Young people usually are the easiest to manipulate.

This

means that youth generations can empathize with a subjective and manipulated point of view and minimize the gravity of a crime.

In addition

, it is more interesting to be talked to by a specialist with a neutral point of view.

For example

, in my school often we attend conferences with experts on each topic.

To conclude

,

this

essay totally disagrees with the statement because people who have been in prison are not always objective and can manipulate youths

that is

why is better to be taught by a specialist.