I would like to know why this man is on the street.

Each phrase in the headline aggravates the previous one. We read first that a man "rapes" a woman. Then, that it's "in the middle of the street." Then, that it's "his daughter." Then, that it's "in front of her eight-year-old brother." Days later, that "it wasn't the first time."

Given this, we're surprised that the judge releases him with a restraining order, and then, days later, when he breaks it, jails him again and releases him again. Clearly, no judge wakes up in the morning thinking, "Today I'm going to release a rapist, I want to be destroyed on Twitter and I want him to rape again." Surely this judge has reasons, based on the law, but which ones? Are they correct? I read that "the fact that neither the Prosecutor's Office nor the victim requested his imprisonment would have been an important factor in the decision to release him," but that "the victim reportedly stated that this was not the first time he had sexually assaulted her." Should something in the law be changed? Or perhaps not? In this specific, aberrant case of incest, there may have been "consent" on the part of the victim, perhaps? Is this case legal or "not punishable"?

I would like them to tell us, because the words are specific, they serve a specific purpose: they tell us "rape." And they call us "our own daughter." How is it, then, we wonder, that this man is on the street, when it turns out that the non-consensual kiss with Jenni Hermoso (to mention one of the media cases that, privately, we consider exaggerated and, therefore, a disservice to justice) is a sexual assault for which there has been a trial and conviction? I keep mulling over the case, wondering what we don't know, what we're missing. What does the law say? I wish I understood, because I don't.