The decision of the majority on the parliamentary committee reviewing the laws covering sexual offences that a woman need not obtain the permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to prefer a charge of rape against her husband is manifestly sound and correct.

We arrive at our position on the basis of two simple and profound facts: that women - within some parameters - are no less than men, either physiologically or intellectually.

Second, marriage, either for the man or woman, ought not be a presumption of chattel servitude. Indeed, marriage, beyond its basic legal framework, is a relationship of continuously negotiated behaviour, within which context the woman retains ownership and control of her body. This, in our view, is as much a legal as a moral construct.

Sex and sexual relationships, therefore, are part of the negotiated ritual of marriage in which either party starts with equal stakes and from which both parties must have the right to withdraw at any time. So, as in any other relationship or in any other circumstance, a woman in a marriage has an absolute right to say no to sex. And no does not mean perhaps or maybe.

When a man presumes it is right to insist on sex with his wife without her consent, he first presumes an ownership of an individual that is morally repulsive; if he goes through with the act against her will, he would have, in our view, broken the law, as would be with rape in another circumstance.

There can be no different standard for rape in or outside of marriage, which would make any claim for making the crime on which the DPP has to pronounce irrelevant. Indeed, in the case of domestic abuse there is no such intervention by the public prosecutor's office before the police can charge an alleged offender.

Moreover, we do not expect the DPP to be a social worker or marriage counsellor, but someone who deals with criminal justice on the basis of law. If couples need help and advice, let them find social and psychological professionals, not lawyers in the Office of the DPP.

Greg Christie's campaign

We have in these columns before declared our support for Contractor General's Greg Christie's drive for transparency and accountability in the management of government contracts.

But we have found distracting, Mr. Christie's apparent need to respond or comment on every real or perceived criticism of his performance and to give a running commentary on every aspect of every investigation. In fact, he runs the risk of appearing to be in search of glory rather than truth.

The instant case is the one probing whether Barbara Clarke, the chairman, the Government-owned Petroleum Company of Jamaica (Petcom), abused and helped to influence the awarding of contracts to her private company.

Mr. Christie apparently believes that he has discovered a discrepancy over which the company received contracts, and suggests deception. So, Mr. Christie has announced that he is considering whether to refer the matter to the DPP - presumably for prosecution.

Mr. Christie need not tell whether he might ask the DPP if there are actionable grounds, either against Ms. Clarke or Petcom. Just do it ... or don't. Then give the public the facts.