Governor Hochul recognizes that the unpleasant incident at Cornell probably didn’t meet a definition of rape under New York Law.
As defined in New York law, a person who has voluntarily consumed alcohol and drugs can still consent to sexual activity if they are conscious and able to speak.
There is significant evidence, including the complainant’s own statements, that indicated Jane Doe in the Cornell incident verbally consented to the sex acts that occurred in the Chi Phi house, and that she actively participated in them, and that she only began to perceive these acts as nonconsensual weeks later when the fraternity’s president disinvited her from a Halloween party at the frat house that she badly wanted to attend.
The only argument that these acts were nonetheless rape is if the woman’s apparent consent was invalid due to her intoxication. The law in New York is clear on the question: It was not.
Governor Hochul therefore wants to expand the law to recategorize a lot of sex that is currently noncriminal as serious felonies.
Despite the fact that Governor Hochul, by arguing that the law in New York needs to change to encompass the events at Cornell, she is implicitly recognizing that those events likely do not meet the legal definition of a crime that can be prosecuted, she has removed the local district attorney for reaching a legal finding consistent with this analysis.
She has appointed Attorney General Tish James to go to Ithaca and prosecute these men without regard for what the law says.
Choosing to have a drink is not consent, and it’s never a license for sexual assault.
New York law should reflect that.
I support closing the voluntary intoxication loophole and will work with the Legislature to get it done.