It is argued that asking those who are released from prison to have a talk to school students is a good education method, I agree with this to some extend but I believe there are better alternatives to provide crime education.
At the outset, I agree that students may get aware of the consequences of engaging in criminal activities when attending a talk given by ex-prisoners. Their life stories are often vivid and persuasive, and this can attract the attention of school students easily. These real-life examples educate students about what one has to pay for unlawful activities. For instance, the success of a series of educational programs on Indian Television channels about the price that offenders have to pay proves that the narrative forms of crime education can work.
On the other hand, I believe that a combination of different education methods would produce a more desirable result compared to a former prisoner holding a talk. Primarily, parents should act as pioneers to educate children at an early age about social evils and how to avoid them. It has long been acknowledged that the home environment has a profound effect on the development of a child, and a significant percentage of juvenile crime stems from insufficient education criminals receive in their childhood. Teachers at schools also play an important role in raising the awareness of students about crime. Moral lessons ought not to be included in the classroom study, and a positive education environment should be promoted, contributing to crime prevention.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that a talk given by ex-offenders might be effective, but it is not the best education method for crime education.