There are a lot of criticisms underlying pre-trial drug testing. Several supporters strongly believe that forced drug test is critical for legal systems. However, there are proponents of the status quo, who mainly focus on maintaining the privacy and confidentiality of individuals. It is essential therefore to look at the history of implementation and the view of mandatory drug testing. In reference to December 1995, then US President Bill Clinton recommended that a worldwide pre-trial drug testing guiding principle be implemented.
In the bid to persuade both the state and local jurisdiction to join in the directive of drug testing, President Clinton added more funding by 25 million dollars. An agreement was signed involving the federal courts in which this policy was assumed on the rank by 24 federal districts of the total 94 (Alan & John, 1999).
According to the Criminal Justice System and the text America’s Courts, pre-trial drug testing is founded on assumptions. In some cases, assumptions can be defined as accurate guesses. The key aspect is knowledge of the drug consumption of the defendant during the arrest. At this point regarding the results of the drug test, there is the certainty of misdemeanors at pre-trial. On another aspect of the policy, monitoring done during the pre-trial time may be used with sanctions. These sanctions will hopefully discourage pre-trial misdemeanors (Alan & John, 1999).
I clearly perceive the mandated drugs are not effectual, thus my personal point of via ew. If such policy were to be implemented, such an alarming rate of recidivism would not be experienced. The implementation of the successful policy should result in more than sending individuals to prison many times where they end up breaking them habitually. This calls for a need to end the trend of drug abuse and this cause is not available in such a policy.
The policy offers one aspect of incriminating the evidence to be used on the defendants in law courts (Dean et al., 2008). This policy infringes four fundamental rights as stipulated in the Bills Of rights, which entail the right against self-incrimination, the right against unfair handling and searches, the right to be treated fairly like any other person, and the right to be perceived innocent until guilty is established. The policy is an infringement of human rights, while it stipulates that refusing to be tested for drugs do not result in detention, such an argument does not stipulate that there won’t be a sensible doubt from the mind of the prosecutor and the court regarding the validity of one’s innocence (Neubauer, 2002).
Having a forced drug test and revenge of such results to any other persons prior to the Court is an infringement of the rights of a person. Consequently, the right to be treated like others is violated. Forcing a suspected user of drugs to take a drug test does not place them on a similar level with other persons. It is hard to identify a person on drugs in the courtroom (Frank & Daniel, 2010). Apparently, we cannot tell unless a mandatory drug test is enforced for all defendants on all levels.
The notion of enforcing a drug test on all defendants sounds ridiculous but that is what this policy depicts. In my opinion, it is pointless to carry on a program that cannot work. While the citizen’s rights continue to be infringed upon.
References
Alan H., and John C., (1999). Pretrial Drug Testing: An Overview of Issues and Practices. Web.
Dean J., Richard D., and Gary A. (2008). Criminal courts: Structure, process, and issues, Second Edition.Prentice-Hallentice Hall.
Frank S., and Daniel E., (2010). Criminal Law Today, Fourth Edition, New York: Prentice Hall.
Neubauer, D. (2002). America’s courts and the criminal justice system. Thomson: Wadsworth.