They actually could not decide whether to punish the woman who was raped or the rapist. After all the woman was also at fault for allowing the guy to rape her.The article says:
" The appeal court reduced the life sentence after the panel of judges failed to reach consensus, an official said."
The panel of judges could not decide 5 years or 7 or life, but, how on earth did they come up with ONE MONTH. incredulous.
I really hope that your post was tongue in cheekShe opened the door of her house to a man who is not her husband or her brother or her father or her son. It doesn't matter that he is her husband's friend, this is downright Infidelity.
I'm amazed that the woman is not jailed and got away scotfree for seducing the man by opening the door. The authorities definitely need to impose stricter laws that allow a woman to only open the door after she has confirmed through the peephole that the person on the other side is husband/father/brother/son because it is only these men that have ownership of said woman and no one else.
Definitely tongue in cheek! Maybe I should've added a smiley or something but whilst reading that article, these are exactly the thoughts that were running through my head. I wasn't surprised because we've read similar stories in the news and nothing is ever going to change here.I really hope that your post was tongue in cheek