![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jan. 31st, 2007 12:42 pmThere've been a couple of cases, recently, of my over-reacting to something in the paper. So I'd like to run this past you guys:
Mr Hett does not believe rapists are being acquitted, only that juries are identifying flimsy and maliciously false accusations. As an example, he highlights a recent case where a woman accused her husband of rape, five days after they had sex.
"He said, 'we had sex and she's my wife. I didn't force her.' He faced four counts and it was dropped a day before the trial. It goes to show that police bring frivolous cases. Most complaints are unwarranted."
Is this Mr Hett implying that it is impossible for a woman to be raped by her husband? I can't see any other factor that would make the case "frivolous" in his eyes...
Am I over-reacting? This is on the BBC website, ffs...
Mr Hett does not believe rapists are being acquitted, only that juries are identifying flimsy and maliciously false accusations. As an example, he highlights a recent case where a woman accused her husband of rape, five days after they had sex.
"He said, 'we had sex and she's my wife. I didn't force her.' He faced four counts and it was dropped a day before the trial. It goes to show that police bring frivolous cases. Most complaints are unwarranted."
Is this Mr Hett implying that it is impossible for a woman to be raped by her husband? I can't see any other factor that would make the case "frivolous" in his eyes...
Am I over-reacting? This is on the BBC website, ffs...
