This essay will argue that it is irresponsible to believe that reformed ex-convicts are the most qualified individuals to lecture youngsters about the consequences of crime.
Despite the attractiveness of their personal experience as a vivid illustration, ex-convicts are not the ideal individuals to teach children about the hazards of breaking the law. Prior to determining whether a strategy is the most effective, it is necessary to establish certain benchmarks in order to establish a sense of distinction. In the sphere of education described in this essay, criminology experience — the identification of multiple offenses, the degree of danger posed by unlawful actions, the calculation of punishment, etc. — holds sway. Educators are needed to have a positive, virtuous personal image because they interact with students, a vulnerable group that is very prone to being influenced by others. People may question their suitability once they are confronted by the students: they have a past, they are not prepared to be professionals in their knowledge, and it is difficult to assess if they are "decent." Therefore, the person who performs better at this job will have expertise in the knowledge of crime and related preventing methods, as well as a good reputation among students in general; the police or professional investigators in crime-related fields will sound more appropriate in conducting this job.
We would be more convinced of this conclusion if we examined these ex-prisoners in greater depth. The foundation of the argument is that those described are already decent individuals, which means that they should, on the one hand, serve in society as a regular citizen would, and, on the other hand, not be regularly discriminated against by others. The just action of teaching students about crime-related facts primarily by utilizing their personal experience as an example is what puts them into "a man who used to violate the law." This may give them stereotypes about the general public, especially among students who lack the maturity to treat them without bias. In the end, these ex-criminals should not be regarded as a negative reference, since they are at risk of suffering human rights violations; they deserve equal respect from society as a whole, provided it is not required to disclose their criminal past.
In conclusion, I am compelled to oppose the opinion due to a lack of consideration of the potential repercussions of allowing former prisoners to engage in crime-related courses.
