The latest mailer “Approved by Jack Perry” and paid for by the Senate Democrats Victory PAC is yet another misrepresentation of my record.

The flyer claims “Rob Sampson had the chance to change the law to protect young women from sexual assault, he voted no.” and also that “Out of 151 legislators, Sampson was 1 of only 7 to oppose a bill to strengthen consent laws and ensure WHEN A WOMAN SAYS NO, IT MEANS NO”

This is the bill referenced:

https://cga.ct.gov/2016/SUM/2016SUM00106-R02HB-05376-SUM.htm

Apparently Mr. Perry and the Democrats haven’t been following this issue since 2016 when this happened but the idea of “Affirmative Consent” laws has failed. The practice has been discredited by the American Law Institute and the American Bar Association and for good reason – reasons that were not a surprise to me in April of 2016 when I cast my vote in opposition to this terrible policy.

American Law Institute Rejects ‘Affirmative Consent’ Standard for Model Penal Code

“Affirmative Consent” as a Legal Standard?

‘A mess’: Law group rejects affirmative consent

To clarify, this law isn’t much of a law at all. The Connecticut legislature did NOT pass a law requiring “Affirmative Consent.”

Rather, it passed a law to suggest to our state colleges (with exceptions) to adopt a policy of “Affirmative Consent” for sexual encounters on campus.

However, even this “suggestion” was and is bad policy and there is good reason why it is NOT the law in Connecticut.

1) Does it makes sense to apply a new standard for what defines a consensual sexual encounters but then also say it only applies on college campuses but nowhere else? What about people not on college campuses? What about non-students interacting with students? – or students that attend Charter Oak State College (who were carved out of the bill for some reason) for that matter.

In America, laws must apply to everyone equally. Note to Mr. Perry. That means both young women – and men.

2) Affirmative Consent undermines a key principle of our rule of law – that in America, people are innocent until proven guilty. This policy instead requires the accused to prove their innocence. I am proud of this NO vote since it is another example of my willingness to stand on principle and reject bad policy being passed for political purposes.

I am also proud of my six colleagues who voted with me – four women, five Republicans, and one Democrat. All understood that this is not only wrong but in direct contradiction to our American system of laws and justice.

Contrary to the claims above, this “law” does not protect young women (or men) in any way. It makes no change to the definition of rape or sexual assault.

Further, to claim that this has anything to do with “No means No” is absolutely false. That would in fact create a sexual assault. This bill is about requiring proof that a supposed victim said yes after the fact. Those are two entirely different standards.

To say that I would not protect someone from sexual assault is completely false. It’s a disgusting and patently dishonest claim.

On the contrary, I have voted countless times to strengthen our criminal laws and to keep rapists and murderers in prison.