Why can cross-examination be distressing for rape victims in court?

In many rape trials, the guilt or innocence of the accused hinges on whether the victim consented to sexual intercourse. The determination of consent often leads to distressing cross-examinations of victims in court, as defense counsel may attempt to discredit the accuser.12

This process can be particularly humiliating because it may involve the introduction of the victim's past sexual history as evidence, which is often irrelevant to the specific case but used to undermine the victim's credibility. Because of the potential for such traumatic experiences, many jurisdictions have implemented rape shield laws. These statutes are designed to protect victims by limiting the ability of the defense to introduce an accuser's sexual history, thereby preventing them from being unfairly discredited.12

Despite these protections, the difficulty of proving a crime that typically lacks third-party witnesses, combined with the risk of humiliating courtroom procedures, contributes to the fact that rape remains significantly underreported and underprosecuted.1