Are Pre-Trial Drug Tests a Good Idea?

"In a typical year, the percent of male arrestees testing positive for recent illegal drug use is 75 %" (Neubauer, 2008 Ch.11, p. 292). The statistics of illegal drug use are alarming enough to seek proactive measures to ensure that drug offenders that come before the court are tested and rehabilitated in efforts of curbing pre-trial failure to appear and pretrial misconduct through rehabilitating the offender (Neubauer, 2008). However, this ideology wastes a lot of resources that could be allocated elsewhere and the results of studies done are all inconclusive.

In 1997, Operation Drug Testing Effective Sanctions and Treatment (TEST) required all defendants who are arrested to be administered drug tests in addition to reporting their findings to the perspective courts to help the judge decide whether they should be bonded out or held until trial. While the thoughts behind the idea are good, the costs of testing can be expensive depending upon the method used (Neubauer, 2008).

There are a variety of methods used to test such as analyzer-based testing, in house analyzers and hand-held testing. Analyzer-based urine testing are tests that are performed in "a commercial laboratory or in an onsite test facility"(U.S. Department of Justice [USDOJ], 1999) The analyzer-based testing method requires a commercial contract with a laboratory in which costs can vary depending upon if the location is local or if the specimen has to be sent to them (USDOJ, 2008). Commercial laboratories can cost around twenty dollars per test. If a drug court saw thirty cases, it would cost six hundred dollars for that one session of court.

A cheaper method and faster method is the in-house analyzer tests such as testing urine on-site). This method costs about one dollar to perform per defendant. The cost seems cheap until costs such as getting the program started. In addition to one dollar per defendant, there are costs for leasing or buying the equipment, costs to maintain the equipment, hiring, paying, and training staff (USDOJ, 1999).

Another method is hand held testing which can include testing urine through sticks, testing perspiration by-way of a patch, or hair analysis. This seems to be the more efficient mode of testing because it reduces the chain of custody allocating only one person to collect and test and test results are almost instant. The costs of performing these tests can "range from $2.50-$4.50 per test" (USDOJ, 1999, p.5)At this rate, thirty cases would cost $135, saving the government around $560. The sweat patch runs around seven dollars each, but would still save the government almost four hundred dollars. However, the cost of the supplies such as gloves, cups, or strips must be taken into account as well.

Most research that has been done on pre-trial drug testing have concluded that in cases involving opius, heroin, or cocaine, there have been few instances where it have been proven to either have an effect on pre-trial misconduct or failure to appear, but never both (USDOJ, 1999). So, if there have been few instances of occurrence and never both, than why spend money to prevent something that is not really being prevented.

Also, if a test is positive and allocating a sentence that imposes drug-treatment programs, the government would spend approximately $2,000 per case; and in thirty cases; that is $60,000 a day (Rehabs, 2008). This is a heavy cost considering none of the tests can definitively say if the person used drugs religiously or if they were first time offenders who may not need the program for an addict.

Again, if the premise of a program is to prevent than it should have proven results in order to be able to use governmental funds that could be used elsewhere, such as the communities where the drugs came from in the first place, which would not place such a big emphasis on helping or rehabilitating criminals but it would be helping the community to which they serve and protect.

Neubauer, D.W. (2008). American courts and the criminal justice system. 9^th ed. Thomson Learning, Inc.