Some individuals are of the opinion that ex-prisoners becoming good citizens are the most suitable people to speak to children about the consequences of breaking laws. I strongly disagree with this statement and this essay will indicate the rationale and other addresses for my point of view.
On the one hand, using rehabilitated prisoners for that purpose has some merits. This is because the young who are curious about anything probably do what they are not allowed to and are rarely susceptible to theories. That is why they tend to be more easily persuaded by people who speak from practical experiences having a high reality. Indeed, teenagers might sympathize effortlessly with all the stories and feelings of ex-criminals making them more aware of their actions. Simultaneously, these can attract their interest and help them remember in the long term compared to theoretical lessons.
On the other hand, there are some addresses to educate teenagers more effectively. Firstly, parents play a central role in educating their offspring in the first period of their growth. Because parents might know their children best to provide suitable advice and keep their children out of risk at least. In the meantime, schools should cooperate with parents to organize some activities combining theoretical and practical lessons that allow students to learn methodically while stimulating their interest in actively learning. Moreover, that can be more effective because this approach has a high exactitude to compare with education by ex-prisoners which from their instinct have no methodical knowledge.
In conclusion, while there are diverse opinions on whether educating teenagers by ex-criminals is more suitable, I contend that neither should be exclusively prioritized over the other. Both education from ex-prisoners, parents, and schools are integral to ensuring the best quality of teenagers’s knowledge. Therefore, achieving a balance between these two aspects is essential for the longevity and sustainability of educating teenagers today.