Some people who have been in prison become good citizens later, and it is often argued that these are the best people to talk to teenagers about the dangers of committing a crime. To what extent do you agree or disagre?
It is irrefutable that crime is a perennial problem that all societies confront. Because of that, how to effectively combat and deter teenagers from committing a crime has always been a much debated topic. A school of thoughts holds that the optimal method is to consent successfully reformed prisoners to give speech to young adults. While this may work to some extent, I would argue that police and experts are probably more appropriate in a bid to educate youngsters about the repercussions of crime.
On the one hand, the advocacy of the view that ex-cons should be the ones who talk to teenagers is justifiable. This can boil down to the fact that former inmates had spent part of their life serving in prisons, thus knowing the best about this tough experience and in tandem with imparting their own stories, they could preclude youngsters from getting involved in criminal acts. On the other hand, I believe this method could trigger more detrimental effects on the mentality of teenagers. Some young adults, especially those who have a rebellious tendency, may not take a serious look at the issue or even grow a desire to lead a life of crime. In addition, some ex-convicts would show up with an intimidating appearance, which could frighten the teenagers and lead to a failure in communicating the message. As a result, this measure, by and large, would be counterproductive rather than effective.
In order to reduce juvenile delinquency, knowledge shared by police and criminal psychologists, in lieu of inmates, are far more plausible. First and foremost, police are the ones who have investigated these criminal acts and witnessed the prisoners' struggles in jail thus can inform youngsters about the consequences they may bring or even teach them different ways to steer clear of crime. Police aside, experts studying about criminals are also suitable for educating teenagers how to stay away from committing illegal acts. Since they had spent years scrutinizing the motivators and analyzing the mental well-being of the convicts, they can elaborately apprise the root of these acts as well as instruct teenagers to be exemplary citizens.
In conclusion, for the purpose of curbing youth crime, ex-convicts talking to teenagers does not generate fruitful outcomes. As opposed to reformed prisoners, police officers or specialists in this field would be a more holistic approach to address the rate of crime in juveniles.
- The plans below show a public park when it first opened in 1920 and the same park today 10
- Some people who have been in prison become good citizens later and it is often argued that these are the best people to talk to teenagers about the dangers of committing a crime To what extent do you agree or disagre 78
- the plans below show a public park when it first opened in 1920 and the same park today
- the plans below show a public park when it first opened in 1920 and the same park today
- THE DIAGRAM BELOW SHOWS A POSSIBLE FUTURE MEANS OF HOME ENERGY PRODUCTION 11
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ters about the repercussions of crime. On the one hand, the advocacy of the vie...
^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...unterproductive rather than effective. In order to reduce juvenile delinquency,...
^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ct teenagers to be exemplary citizens. In conclusion, for the purpose of curbin...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, if, look, may, so, thus, well, while, in addition, in conclusion, as a result, as well as, by and large, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 7.85571142285 178% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 24.0651302605 108% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 41.998997996 143% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 8.3376753507 36% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2049.0 1615.20841683 127% => OK
No of words: 397.0 315.596192385 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16120906801 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46372701284 4.20363070211 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90214147059 2.80592935109 103% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 176.041082164 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.566750629723 0.561755894193 101% => OK
syllable_count: 639.0 506.74238477 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.6478460345 49.4020404114 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.0625 106.682146367 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8125 20.7667163134 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.4375 7.06120827912 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 3.9879759519 251% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.173878962975 0.244688304435 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0537664056071 0.084324248473 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0398604851709 0.0667982634062 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.106176492067 0.151304729494 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0315840196758 0.056905535591 56% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 13.0946893788 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 50.2224549098 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.4159519038 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.24 8.58950901804 108% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 78.4519038076 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.