Đề bài: Some people believe having former prisoners talk to students us the best way to reduce crime. Agree/Disagree?
Brainstorm:
a. Body 1:
- People who used to serve in prison -> first-hand experience
-> consequences of committing an illegal act
- Flaw: students may be frightened by prisoners
b. Body 2:
- Police: take the responsibility of educating students
-> practical experience + admiration from citizens
-> considerable impact on students' mindset -> disincentive to carry out crime
- Organize prison visit
-> acquire practical knowledge about life in prison
-> deter teenagers and adolescents from committing illegal acts
My essay:
It is commonly believed that allowing inmates to have a talk with pupils at school is the optimal method to cut crime rates. While this is valid to a certain extent, I would argue that there are more viable solutions to the problem of crime.
The notion that the most feasible approach to criminal acts is having former prisoners to talk to students is largely justifiable. The key rationale in favor of this view is that they have first-hand experiences thanks to the period of time serving in sentence. These past experiences can contribute to the truthfulness of the lecture, which acts as a catalyst for students' awareness of the dire repercussions of committing an illegal act. Therefore, they would be less likely to flout the law. However, this thinking is flawed, since pupils are usually frightened by the presence of convicts. This can be attributed to the fact that people often have prejudice against prisoners, most notably serious criminals such as serial killers and rapists, that they are fearsome and a forever menace to society. Therefore, adopting this method can be counterproductive to some extent.
In lieu of the aforementioned method, I believe that governments should develop more pragmatic approaches. To begin with, the police should take the responsibility of educating students about the law and criminal acts. They have not only practical experiences like inmates but also admiration from students. The implication is that they can exert considerable impacts on students' mindset, which can act as a disincentive to pupils' act of carrying out crime. It is imperative that the method outlined above be employed in tandem with organizing prison visits for students. This solution would give students an opportunity to acquire practical knowledge about the adverse consequences of violating the laws, which may deter teenagers and adolescents from committing illegal acts in the future.
In conclusion, while there are plausible reasons to advocate letting prisoners talk with students to curb crime, I contend that the proposed approaches would produce more spectacular results.
