Don't think I can write much of a post to go with this headline without laying us open to all kinds of litigeous unpleasantness, but seriously - why do NZ juries find it so hard to actually convict a rapist for raping someone? Do we just not care, or what?
When you look at high-profile murder cases, eg Scott Watson, we seem happy to convict on balance of probabilities. Hardly proved beyond reasonable doubt, but not really likely to be anyone else, so buggered if you're going to just let him walk. And yet, with rape cases we seem to be quite happy to just let the scumbag walk. What is it with us?
May 31 in history
4 hours ago