The analysis focuses on forcible, heterosexual rapes. It examines the reporting of rape and the evaluation of rape complaints by police, prosecutors, and juries. In addition, it considers the issue of the frequency of false reports of rape, the role of the prosecution's burden of proof in the difficulty in obtaining convictions in acquaintance rape cases, and the probative value of evidence concerning the victim's character in determining whether the sexual encounter was consensual in an acquaintance rape case. The analysis concludes that although official bias has had an important role, most rape-case attrition appears to result from a combination of the victim's unwillingness to seek legal redress, the prosecution's burden of proof in criminal cases, and juror's attitudes. The first and third factors are affected by evolving public attitudes toward rape, which in turn may be enhanced by national publicity given to law reforms. However, in most individual jurisdictions changes in legal rules do not seem to generate noticeable changes in case outcomes in that jurisdiction. Thus, rape law reforms appear to have a much more secondary instrumental role than legal scholars like to believe. Nevertheless, progress has occurred in reduced rape rates, greater victim willingness to report rape, greater use of specialized sex crimes units, and increased sympathy of juries to victims of acquaintance rape. Overall, realism about the limits of law reform is essential if false hopes are to be avoided. Footnotes