Your Answer ▼
People have different views on whether
rehabilitated former criminals talking to young adults about their thoughts on
violating laws is the most effective way to prevent teenager from committing a crime. While
I understand the advantages of such a case, I think that there might be better
ways to deter juvenile crimes.
Some people suggest that former offenders
could provide a good example of the consequences of committing crimes to
teenagers. Unlike any other people, those who have successfully settled in a
society after imprisonment can tell the teenagers their honest stories about
why they made such regrettable choice. Therefore, it would be easier for
teenagers to truly understand the price one has to pay for not following the
laws.
Despite the arguments expressed above, I
think that other methods could be equally or even more effective. Stories
regarding the reason for committing offenses and how a person may regret his or
her decision can also be told by different people. For example, school teachers
or local police officers are also capable of delivering those kinds of
anecdotes and moral lessons as well as the former criminals. Furthermore, such
personnel might be more beneficial for adolescents because in case of former
prisoners, regardless of how rehabilitated and loyal citizens they have become,
there is a risk of telling the lesson in a not refined way. Whereas On the other hand, such a scenario is unlikely to happen with trained educational adults since they can
have clear objectives and advice included in the content of the story being
told, which might be less confusing for teenagers.
In conclusion, I disagree with the idea
that past prisoners are the best people for adolescents since other people are also
capable of convincing them in a clearer way. |