Some people assume that speeches from former inmates who adhere to the law later should be conveyed to school-age youngsters. That is considered to be the optimal way to underscore the repercussions of carrying out unlawful acts. In my opinion, I fully agree with this viewpoint due to their authenticity.
To begin with, stories shared by ex-prisoners are based on real-life experiences, making them convincing to students. Ex-offenders could recount their sufferings and hardships in prison time. In other words, the price they must pay for their illegitimate. Consequently, those lessons would act as a deterrent to would-be delinquents.
Likewise, from the perspective of the listeners, youngsters are willing to take advice from rehabilitated lawbreakers. To be specific, their talks can distinguish right from wrong and draw a line between doing good and bad. As a result, what they share could be appealing and realistic, which profoundly impacts young listeners.
The alternative approach to using reformed criminals to educate teenagers about crime would be to let police officers and lawyers give a talk to young students. Some may claim they are qualified enough to discuss the repercussions of breaking the law. However, it seems these sentiments would be invalid. Their lectures are likely to fail to leave any impression and are even tedious. School-age children may perceive their advice as theoretical, and they tend to ignore authority figures. Thus, this approach may prove to be time-wasting.
In conclusion, people's opinions differ on whether to let ex-prisoners talk to school-age children or not. Although authority figures are deemed to be better suited to educate teenagers, I hold a belief that individuals who have been rehabilitated could help deter teenagers from committing crimes.
To begin with, stories shared by ex-prisoners are based on real-life experiences, making them convincing to students. Ex-offenders could recount their sufferings and hardships in prison time. In other words, the price they must pay for their illegitimate. Consequently, those lessons would act as a deterrent to would-be delinquents.
Likewise, from the perspective of the listeners, youngsters are willing to take advice from rehabilitated lawbreakers. To be specific, their talks can distinguish right from wrong and draw a line between doing good and bad. As a result, what they share could be appealing and realistic, which profoundly impacts young listeners.
The alternative approach to using reformed criminals to educate teenagers about crime would be to let police officers and lawyers give a talk to young students. Some may claim they are qualified enough to discuss the repercussions of breaking the law. However, it seems these sentiments would be invalid. Their lectures are likely to fail to leave any impression and are even tedious. School-age children may perceive their advice as theoretical, and they tend to ignore authority figures. Thus, this approach may prove to be time-wasting.
In conclusion, people's opinions differ on whether to let ex-prisoners talk to school-age children or not. Although authority figures are deemed to be better suited to educate teenagers, I hold a belief that individuals who have been rehabilitated could help deter teenagers from committing crimes.
