Caroline Rao 1

The book, The Other Wes Moore, portrays the life journeys of two characters with the

same name, but very different experiences. By telling not only the story of his life, but that of

another boy who shared his name, Scholar Wes Moore encapsulated the importance of one’s

environment and developmental setting in determining the future. Both Agnew’s general strain

theory and Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory of low self-control provide evidence and reasoning

for criminal behavior and deviancy for both Wes Moores.

One theory that supports both Scholar Wes Moore and Inmate Wes Moore’s stories is

Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory of low self-control, which assumes that people are born lacking

self-control and that only effective child-rearing can steer them on the right path. The theory

further branches off into two descriptions: one of bad child-rearing, marked by absence and

negativity, and one of good child-rearing, marked by support and accountability. For example,

Scholar Wes Moore’s childhood was defined by a strong, educated mother, who always strived

to provide the best for her children. She was always making countless sacrifices and protecting

her kids, especially Wes. Furthermore, she sacrificed time with her son and resorted to asking

people for money to send him to military school and intervene in a crucial time in Scholar Wes

Moore’s life: a time when he needed to be saved from himself (Moore, 2011). His mother

provided emotional support and was a positive role model for Scholar Wes Moore as he grew up.

However, Inmate Wes Moore consistently lacked stability throughout his childhood. His older

brother, Tony, was heavily involved in the drug game and was a poor role model for Inmate Wes

Moore. Additionally, his mother did not provide much supervision, and Inmate Wes Moore was

often left at home alone. In this case, Scholar Wes Moore is best compared to a good child-

rearing and Inmate Wes Moore portrays a bad child-rearing.

 Caroline Rao 2

These characteristics of both good and bad child-rearing set the stage for a future of high

or low self-control, according to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory. Inmate Wes Moore, as a

result of a bad child-rearing adopted low self-control, which can be identifiable through the way

he was involved with drugs. As a kid, he refused to consider the consequences of getting

involved with drugs and gave in readily to the opportunities that arose from the drug game.

Inmate Wes Moore had a short temper and was very impulsive, particularly when he was going

after Ray, who instigated a fight with Inmate Wes Moore over a girl. All he could think about

was when his brother, Tony, told him to send a message and his anger drove him to shoot Ray in

the shoulder and ultimately led to his own arrest (Moore, 2011). For Scholar Wes Moore, he

encompassed high self-control. High self-control is characterized by being inhibited by potential

consequences of actions. For example, when Scholar Wes Moore was nearly arrested for

spraying graffiti on a wall, he swore he would never get himself into a situation like that again

and he was given a gift by the cops that day (Moore, 2011). Gottfredson and Hirschi argue that

Scholar Wes Moore, due to his good child-rearing and high self-control, was able to resist

temptations to commit crimes and deviate. Instead, Inmate Wes Moore experienced a bad child-

rearing and low self-control, therefore leading to criminal behavior and deviancy.

In addition to the low self-control theory, general strain theory is a primary predictor of

criminal behavior. Robert Agnew proposed that both the presentation of noxious stimuli and the

removal of positively valued stimuli lead to stress and then ultimately, anger which is a primary

cause of criminal behavior. Inmate Wes Moore portrayed this theory through the immense

amount of noxious stimuli presented throughout his life. From failing and then ultimately

dropping out of school, to continually going back to the drug game, Inmate Wes Moore was

continually faced with unhealthy choices in his life. A huge turning point for Inmate Wes Moore
 Caroline Rao 3

was when he graduated at the top of his class in the Job Corps program. But just as quickly as he

graduated from there, the noxious stimuli presented themselves in the form of drugs upon his

return to Baltimore. Leaving the Job Corps program challenged Wes and when he returned to

Baltimore, he realized that the problems he thought he was fixing were waiting for him when he

returned to the city (Moore, 2011). The frustration that came from this led Inmate Wes Moore to

become angry and upset with himself and he coped with it the only way he knew how to: with

drugs. From there, general strain theory predicts Inmate Wes Moore’s criminal behavior, and

soon enough, he commits the armed jewelry store robbery with his brother, Tony.

For Scholar Wes Moore, general strain theory presents itself in the opposite way. A

combination of a lack of noxious stimuli and an influx of positive stimuli in Scholar Wes

Moore’s life relieved him of stress and prevented the same anger that led Inmate Wes Moore to

deviancy. The positive stimuli that set up Scholar Wes Moore for success was the support system

he had in his mother and his education. Despite struggling at the beginning of his life, Scholar

Wes Moore’s mother realized this and sent him to military school. It was in military school

where he truly found his purpose in life. He discovered what it means to be a leader and his

desire to lead soldiers. While Scholar Wes Moore still experienced stress and frustration, he

learned how to cope with it through military school and the community he found there. General

strain theory, or the lack thereof, is an important predictor in criminality and certainly can

present itself either long-term or short-term as seen through the Wes Moores’ lives. In the end,

the theory of low self-control and general strain theory are pertinent to the vast differences each

Wes Moore has experienced resulting in either criminality or success.