ADLERIAN THEORY OF COUNSELING

Adlerian theory of counseling

Adlerian theory of counseling

Adlerian theory of counseling in forensic feild

Over the last several decades? the United States has pursued a punitive response to drug-related crime. The origins of this sus­tained commitment can be traced to the ideology of the 1980s con­servative politicians who believed that interdiction efforts followed up by incarceration would help stem the tide of drug-related crime. The underlying premise behind the resulting incarceration surge was that stiff sanctions could deter greedy or desperate would-be offend­ers from making bad choices. Despite this conservative ideology? public endorsement? and corresponding aggressive policy approach? the street-level drug market remains a huge problem in the United States? with scores of drug dealers seemingly lining up to supply the staggering number of drug users.

Scholars seeking to explain the attraction of drug dealing in the face of increased certainty and severity of negative consequenc­es routinely point to structural factors such as economic deprivation? poor educational opportunities? high unemployment? gender? and ra­cial inequalities (Dembo? Hughes? Jackson? & Mieczkowski? 1993; Dunlap? Johnson? & Manwar? 1994; Hagedorn? 1994; Lee? 1999; Mieczkowski? 1990? 1992; Morgan & Joe? 1996; Murphy? Waldorf? & Reinarman? 1990; Sommers? Baskin? & Fagan? 1996; Tunnell? 1993; Van Nostrand & Tewksbury? 1999). Intuitively? one can under­stand why people with limited opportunities to achieve the American Dream might choose drug dealing as a means to obtain that cultur­ally sanctioned end (Messner & Rosenfeld? 2007). Other researchers have focused in on the intangible rewards that go along with dealing drugs. Building on Jack Katz's (1988) premise that there exists a sensual attraction in doing crime? these researchers posit that partici­pation in the drug market may provide dealers with a sense of excite­ment? power? or social status that they believe would not otherwise be achieved through conventional means (Dunlap? Johnson? & Manwar? 1994; Inciardi? Lockwood & Pottieger? 1993; Jacobs? 1999; Morgan & Joe? 1996; Sommers? Baskin? & Fagan? 1996; VanNostrand & Tewksbury? 1999). Still others hone in on substance abuse as a moti­vating factor? arguing that street-level dealers tend to ply their trade as a means of feeding their own drug habits (Bennett & Holloway? 2007; Fagan & Chin? 1989; Inciardi? Horowitz? & Pottieger? 1993; Jacobs? 1999; Williams? 1989). Finally? another contingent of crimi­nologists dismiss the importance of criminal motivation and shift their attention instead to cognitive factors such as poor attachment? bonding? or low self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi? 1990; Hirschi? 1969) when seeking to explain criminality? but often these variables are left poorly defined or operationalized.

While principally focused on social factors (e.g.? money? status? alienation) and/or alluding to cognitive elements that attract individuals to drug dealing (e.g.? addiction)? the existing literature does little to identify specific personal characteristics that might underlie or correlate positively with the attraction and/or provide guidance on how to systematically observe them. As helpful as the above lines of research may be? they neglect the fact that not all people who are exposed to drug dealing through platonic associa­tion or kinship gravitate towards drug dealing when the ...