A ‘loophole’ in New York’s rape law may have shut the door on criminal charges in the Cornell case. It’s not the first time

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Resurfaced allegations of a gang rape at a Cornell University fraternity house have renewed outrage over what experts call a legal “ loophole ” in New York’s – and other states’ – sexual assault laws that can make it nearly impossible for survivors to seek justice if they voluntarily consumed alcohol or drugs before an assault.

At issue is the fact that the woman, identified only as Jane Doe, says she drank alcohol and accepted drugs the night she alleges she was sexually assaulted for hours and advertised as “free p*ssy” by someone in a Chi Phi fraternity member group chat.

The Tompkins County district attorney this week offered many words to describe Doe’s account of how the men assaulted her: disgusting, repugnant, offensive, morally reprehensible.

But he did not call it a crime.

“The young men who engaged in that conduct were morally wrong. It was disgusting, and so she reported that to the police, and the police investigated it. That does not mean – if it’s morally wrong or disgusting or offensive, all those things – it does not mean that the penal law was violated,” prosecutor Matthew Van Houten said on CNN’s “The Situation Room.”

His response has left many asking the same question: How could that be?

The answer, sexual assault survivors and their advocates say, is what’s come to be known as the voluntary intoxication “loophole” or “exclusion,” a gap in the law that exists in about 19 states in the US. It’s one reason countless assaults have gone unprosecuted, experts say, and adds to the overwhelming number of barriers survivors face in seeking justice.

Under New York law, a person is guilty of rape if they engage in sexual contact with another person who is “incapable of consent by reason of being mentally disabled or mentally incapacitated.”

Here’s the “ loophole :” A person is only considered “mentally incapacitated” under state law if they were temporarily unable to understand or control their actions due to the influence of a narcotic or intoxicating substance administered to them without their consent – or to any other act done to them without their consent.

Governor Kathy Hochul/X

Cornell University agrees to independent investigation into its handling of alleged sexual assault case

Jane Doe willingly drank alcohol before arriving at the fraternity house, where members led her upstairs, she stated in a recent state lawsuit. Then, after the men surrounded her and pressured her to take ketamine – a dissociative anesthetic the Drug Enforcement Administration notes has been used to facilitate sexual assault – some of them sexually assaulted her for hours, according to the lawsuit, which seeks damages against seven men who were allegedly involved.

Doe told police she was okay with an initial encounter but said she did not consent to sexual contact later in the night, according to a six-page statement obtained by CNN detailing comments Doe made to investigators in the weeks after the alleged assault. She also described being physically hit.

In addressing Doe’s lawsuit allegations, Van Houten this week referenced her voluntary drug use in his explanation of the decision not to bring criminal charges, which he said were considered when she first came forward shortly after the incident.

“The facts provided by Jane Doe’s statement do not allege that she was either rendered incapable of controlling her own conduct or that any drug was administered to her without her consent,” he said.

In New York and elsewhere, every legislative session presents a chance to amend the laws around sexual assault. The Cornell rape case has laid bare a systemic failure within the criminal justice system, said Stefan Turkheimer, vice president for public policy at RAINN, an anti-sexual violence organization.

Legislation to remove New York’s voluntary intoxication exclusion has been introduced annually for at least the past eight years without success. Some lawmakers have been pushing for change for even longer.

New York’s current law was originally written in the 1990s to address cases where people were “roofied,” or drugged without their knowledge, rendering them unable to consent, New York Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz told CNN.

Heather Ainsworth/AP

“Under the current law, somebody being voluntarily intoxicated, which happens all the time, is a virtual get-out-of-jail-free card for somebody who commits a sexual assault,” said Dinowitz, a Democrat. “And that’s just not right.”

In 2019, Dinowitz attempted to change that with legislation that prevents the use of a victim’s voluntary intoxication as a defense in sex crimes where the victim was incapacitated. He sponsored it again in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026. Despite the consistent support of victims’ advocates and other lawmakers, the legislation has never made it to the House for a vote.

“To me, it’s kind of like there’s a binary choice here,” Dinowitz said. “Either you’re on the side of the survivors of sexual assault or you’re on the side of the people who commit the sexual assaults. And I know where I stand.”

Opponents have raised concerns that it’s difficult to nail down the exact point at which a person becomes too drunk to consent. Others have questioned whether a new law paving the way for more prosecutions would disproportionately impact people of color due to existing biases in the criminal justice system.

What Cornell’s Jane Doe told investigators in 2024 prompts fresh questions

The crime of sexual assault can make survivors feel incredibly alone, Turkheimer pointed out.

“The way to heal is to come forward, share with others, and find solace and protection and justice in that sharing – but that depends entirely on whether or not it is safe for that person to come forward,” he said.

“We really need to think about who we’re protecting and why,” he continued. “If we are actually trying to encourage survivors to come forward, we have to have people and systems who prioritize their safety.”

Changing these laws state by state has proven difficult – but not impossible. Last February, Summer Willis crawled to the Texas state capitol on bloody hands and knees to demand a change to the voluntary intoxication exclusion in state law that allowed her college sexual assault a decade earlier to go unprosecuted.

The lengths she went through to secure the win – that other advocates and lawmakers had repeatedly failed to achieve – paid off. The Summer Willis Act was signed into law later that year, changing the state’s sexual assault law and more clearly defining consent in Texas.

Willis made her way to New York last summer to throw her weight behind local advocates and survivors who were pushing to pass a similar law in that state. She told the story of her assault. They told theirs. But the bill was never called for a vote.

The legislative fix didn’t make it to a vote in 2026 either.

That was before Jane Doe’s story exploded onto the scene.

Seleen Saleh and Cura Collective

On Wednesday, New York State Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, a Democrat – who had repeatedly blocked the bill from going to the floor for a full vote – announced he is forming a legislative working group to examine New York’s sexual assault laws, tasked with developing legislative recommendations for the 2027 session.

Turkheimer and others say it’s possible that Doe’s story has garnered enough attention to get the law changed.

Willis told CNN she saw herself in Doe’s account of sexual assault.

“The same law or lack of definition of consent which is prohibiting her from receiving justice happened to me over a decade ago, and happened to others decades and decades ago,” Willis told CNN. “Unless we do something about it now, then it’s going to keep on happening.”

She is now advocating for the passage of legislation in multiple states that will clearly define consent and open pathways for survivors to seek justice.

Willis has a message for the woman at the center of the Cornell rape investigation – and other survivors of sexual assault: “I believed I was alone for so long, and I just want them to know they’re not alone. They have so many people fighting for them. I’m fighting for them.”

Help is available: For help in the US, call the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 1-800-656-4673 or chat 24/7 on online.rainn.org .

CNN’s Brittany Shammas, Gloria Pazmino and Pamela Brown contributed to this report.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

康奈尔大学兄弟会宿舍发生的轮奸案再次浮出水面，引发了公众的强烈愤慨。专家们称，纽约州（以及其他州）的性侵犯法律中存在一个法律“漏洞”，如果受害者在遭受性侵犯之前自愿饮酒或吸毒，那么他们几乎不可能寻求正义。

问题在于，这名仅以“简·多伊”代称的女子称，在她声称自己遭到性侵犯数小时，并且被 Chi Phi 兄弟会成员群聊中的某人宣传为“免费性服务”的那晚，她喝了酒并吸食了毒品。

本周，汤普金斯县地方检察官用了许多词语来形容约翰·多伊对那些男人如何袭击她的描述：令人作呕、令人反感、冒犯、在道德上应受谴责。

但他并没有称之为犯罪。

“那些参与这种行为的年轻人道德败坏，令人作呕，所以她向警方报案，警方也进行了调查。但这并不意味着——即便这种行为道德败坏、令人作呕或冒犯——就违反了刑法，”检察官马修·范·豪顿在CNN的“战情室”节目中说道。

他的回答让许多人产生了同样的疑问：这怎么可能呢？

性侵幸存者及其支持者表示，答案在于所谓的“自愿醉酒漏洞”或“豁免条款”，这是美国约19个州​​存在的法律漏洞。专家指出，这正是无数性侵案件未被起诉的原因之一，也加剧了幸存者在寻求正义时面临的重重阻碍。

根据纽约州法律，如果一个人与“因精神残疾或精神障碍而无法同意”的另一人发生性接触，则该人构成强奸罪。

这就是“漏洞”：根据州法律，只有当一个人因未经其同意而被给予麻醉品或致幻物质，或因未经其同意而对其实施的任何其他行为，而暂时无法理解或控制自己的行为时，该人才被视为“精神无行为能力”。

州长凯西·霍楚/X

康奈尔大学同意对其处理涉嫌性侵案件的方式进行独立调查

据简·多伊在最近提起的一项州诉讼中称，她在到达兄弟会会所前自愿饮酒，随后被几名成员带上楼。诉讼称，之后，几名男子围住她，强迫她服用氯胺酮——一种美国缉毒局指出曾被用于实施性侵犯的分离性麻醉剂——并对她进行了长达数小时的性侵犯。该诉讼要求对七名涉案男子赔偿损失。

据CNN获得的一份长达六页的声明显示，简·多伊告诉警方，她对最初的接触并不介意，但表示当晚晚些时候她并未同意发生性接触。这份声明详细记录了多伊在事发后几周内向调查人员所做的陈述。她还描述了自己遭到殴打的情况。

本周，范豪顿在回应多伊的诉讼指控时，提到了她自愿吸毒的情况，以此解释为何决定不提起刑事诉讼。他说，在多伊事发后不久首次站出来时，他们就考虑过提起刑事诉讼。

他说：“简·多伊的陈述所提供的证据并没有表明她丧失了控制自己行为的能力，也没有表明有人未经她同意给她服用了任何药物。”

在纽约和其他地方，每一次立法会议都是修改性侵犯相关法律的机会。反性暴力组织RAINN的公共政策副总裁斯特凡·图尔克海默表示，康奈尔强奸案暴露了刑事司法系统存在的系统性缺陷。

过去至少八年来，每年都有人提出立法，要求取消纽约州自愿醉酒豁免条款，但均未获得通过。一些立法者推动这项改革的时间甚至更长。

纽约州议员杰弗里·迪诺维茨告诉 CNN，纽约州现行法律最初是在 20 世纪 90 年代制定的，目的是解决人们被“迷奸”或在不知情的情况下被下药，导致他们无法同意的情况。

Heather Ainsworth/美联社

“根据现行法律，有人自愿醉酒（这种情况屡见不鲜）实际上就成了性侵犯者的免罪金牌，”民主党人迪诺维茨说。“这太不公平了。”

2019年，迪诺维茨试图通过立法改变这一现状，该立法旨在禁止在性犯罪案件中，以受害者自愿醉酒为由进行辩护，尤其是在受害者丧失行为能力的情况下。他随后在2020年、2021年、2022年、2023年、2024年、2025年和2026年再次提出该法案。尽管受害者权益倡导者和其他立法者一直支持该法案，但它始终未能提交众议院进行投票表决。

“对我来说，这就像是一个非此即彼的选择，”迪诺维茨说。“要么你站在性侵幸存者一边，要么你站在性侵施暴者一边。我知道我的立场。”

反对者担心，很难准确界定一个人醉酒到无法同意性行为的程度。另一些人则质疑，一项旨在增加起诉的新法律是否会因为刑事司法系统中存在的偏见而对有色人种造成不成比例的影响。

康奈尔大学“简·多伊”在2024年向调查人员所说的话引发了新的疑问。

特克海默指出，性侵犯罪会让幸存者感到无比孤独。

他说：“治愈的方法是站出来，与他人分享，并在分享中找到慰藉、保护和正义——但这完全取决于站出来对当事人来说是否安全。”

他继续说道：“我们真的需要思考我们究竟在保护谁，以及为什么要保护他们。如果我们真的想鼓励幸存者站出来，我们就必须有人员和系统将他们的安全放在首位。”

逐州修改这些法律已被证明十分困难，但并非不可能。去年二月，萨默·威利斯（Summer Willis）血淋淋地爬到德克萨斯州议会大厦，要求修改州法律中关于自愿醉酒免责的条款。正是这项条款使得她十年前在大学遭受的性侵犯得以逍遥法外。

她为取得这场胜利所付出的努力——其他倡导者和立法者屡次失败——最终得到了回报。同年晚些时候，《萨默·威利斯法案》签署成为法律，修改了德克萨斯州的性侵犯法，并更清晰地界定了“同意”的含义。

去年夏天，威利斯前往纽约，声援当地的维权人士和幸存者，他们正努力推动该州通过一项类似的法律。她讲述了自己遭受性侵的经历，他们也讲述了自己的遭遇。但这项法案最终未能付诸表决。

这项立法修正案在 2026 年也未能付诸表决。

那是在简·多伊的故事曝光之前的事了。

Seleen Saleh 和 Cura Collective

周三，纽约州众议院议长、民主党人卡尔·希斯蒂宣布，他将组建一个立法工作组，审查纽约州的性侵犯法律，并负责为 2027 年的立法会议制定立法建议。希斯蒂曾多次阻止该法案提交全体会议进行表决。

特克海默和其他人表示，多伊的故事可能已经引起了足够的关注，从而促使法律发生改变。

威利斯告诉 CNN，她从约翰·多伊对性侵犯的描述中看到了自己的影子。

“同样的法律或对‘同意’定义不清的问题，导致她无法获得公正对待，十多年前我也曾遭遇过同样的情况，几十年前其他人也经历过类似的事情，”威利斯告诉CNN。“如果我们现在不采取行动，这样的事情还会继续发生。”

她现在正积极推动多个州通过立法，明确界定同意的含义，并为幸存者寻求正义开辟途径。

威利斯想对康奈尔强奸案调查中心的那位女性以及其他性侵幸存者说：“我曾经以为自己孤身一人，现在我只想让她们知道，她们并不孤单。有很多人在为她们争取权益。我也在为她们争取权益。”

可以获得帮助：在美国，如需帮助，请拨打全国性侵犯热线 1-800-656-4673 或访问 online.rainn.org 进行 24/7 全天候聊天。

CNN的布列塔尼·沙马斯、格洛丽亚·帕兹米诺和帕梅拉·布朗对本报道亦有贡献。