Rebecca Doherty is what is called a “Common Pleas Judge.” She works in Portage County, Ohio, and she was recently arrested for drunk driving. She is 55 years old and sober as a judge – I don’t think so!
Police responded to a 911 call of a vehicle sliding off Interstate highway 76 near to Akron, Ohio. Law enforcement found that an SUV had lodged in an icy ditch. It was in the middle of a snowstorm. When the police opened her door to extricate her, they were immediately aware of the strong smell of alcohol and vomit on the floor. The officer asked her if she had been drinking, and she admitted that she was very intoxicated and that she was a judge.
The police officer told her that he was placing her under arrest. This was all recorded on a body-cam, of course. The police officer said that since the road conditions were extremely hazardous, he wanted to conduct sobriety back at the station house.
First cracks in the wall
As she was placed in the back of the car, and in handcuffs, the judge started to cry and exclaimed, “Are you kidding me?” I might add that Doherty had once been a prosecutor. She knew exactly what was happening. After her question, the arresting officer said, “What am I kidding about? You’re intoxicated; you crashed your vehicle.”
Back at the station house, two alarming things occurred from an ethical point of view. The first was that when asked, Doherty refused the breathalyzer test, not once but twice. In Ohio, such a refusal often results in a one-year suspension of her driver’s license. She knew exactly where this result could lead.
The other interesting development was that when she was taken in for booking, Doherty insisted on calling the Portage County Sheriff’s Office. She grew angry when she was told that her mobile device was still in her car and it was covered with vomit. She was drunk and on her cell phone either prior to, or immediately after the crash.
Why would she want to call the Sheriff’s Office? Obviously, because she had friends there, and she would have asked them for some kind of help. Influence often works that way.
Therefore, three incidents occurred that indicate that as drunk as she was, that the judge immediately became aware of the consequences of her stupid and dangerous choice: yelling at the arresting officer, in essence in disbelief (“Do you know who I am?”), refusing the breathalyzer test and trying to call friends in the sheriff’s department to use their influence. The ethical cracks in the wall point to more than a privilege, but to opportunity.
Unequal under the law
To the judge’s mind, she was in a different category than what she perceived as a “common criminal.” She was going to use her status as a former prosecutor and judge to take advantage of an arresting officer. She reasoned that her status would somehow gain her a getting out of jail free card. A judge is a powerful person in society and with it come responsibilities and status. To her mind, her status was on another plane that those who came into her courts. She could not connect the idea of possibly killing herself or others on an icy interstate with her actions.
As to her needs for wanting to be treated “differently,” there are the obvious and the subtle. She will probably get censored or fired, most probably get reviewed by the Ohio State Bar, become a laughing-stock, get her name dragged through the local and national media, and it may take years before she is ever taken seriously in a court of law. Subtly, as she undergoes sentencing and classwork, questions are bound to emerge as to alcohol abuse, her patterns of convictions against drunk drivers or drug abusers, and her mental status.
As to rationalization, it is the most ethically troubling of all. Doherty envisions herself as one of the elites, in a ruling class if you will, and above the fray. She is not, of course. In fact, her status is inferior to every person who enters her courtroom seeking an unbiased trial. She may deserve a second chance, of course, but only after realizing there is nothing special about bad choices.
