You need to learn a little Hebrew and do a more careful reading of this whole section of Deuteronomy.
Here is a site that discusses the actual use of words in this section:
The Old Testament and Rape : Commentary on Deuteronomy 22:28-29
"A careful reading of both the passage itself, as well as its surrounding context, dispels such a notion. We quote the passage again, yet this time adding the surrounding context for further clarification:
'But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces (chazaq) her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman CRIED OUT, but there was no one to save her.
If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and THEY ARE found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.' Deuteronomy 22:25-29 NKJV"
~~
This commentator is pointing out that, in the first part, which discusses a betrothed girl, the word involved, chazaq, makes it clear that this girl is raped. But in the second part, which discusses a girl not betrothed, the word involved is not the same and the grammar of the sentence implies that the girl consented.
The problem is this. If we go back further, we find the section to discuss betrothed girls who consent to sex with someone other than the betrothed (indicated by not screaming for help in a city) and betrothed girls who are raped (indicated by screaming and not being heard in the countryside), it only discusses unbetrothed girls who appear to consent to sex, and does not discuss unbetrothed girls who are raped.
This is so typical of the Mosaic code and most other ancient legal codes. Those ancient people did not write down legal codes suiting our demand for generalized, comprehensive, and systematic legislation. Note the details showing how they think in a way entangling specific details unnecessary and insufficient for the basic idea (e.g., city versus countryside) rather than necessary and sufficient emphases (the girl resisted or did not resist, was able to resist or was physically unable to resist, etc.). Note omissions showing how unsystematic and uncomprehensive they are - what about unbetrothed girls who are raped?
This is why the Hebrew/Jewish oral law, the Mishnah, was later redacted in 220CE, because it covered legal cases in which the law was interpreted and applied by judges, who could read the original Hebrew.
Even in the case of the unbetrothed girl who appears to consent, the passage goes on to specify that the man has to compensate her father with a bride-price, and that he can never divorce her. The tenor of the law is to force the man to compensate, not to punish the girl - in the cultural context, her no longer being a virgin would mean that no respectable man would be willing to marry her, so she would lack support when her father died if no one married her.
But the rape victim in the earlier part is said to be innocent even though she would now not be a virgin. Since only the betrothed case is noted, the effect is that the man betrothed to her can't complain that she is not a virgin. We are left wondering what happens in the case of rape of the unbetrothed - we'd have to turn to the oral law.
Nothing here at all about a rape victim being forced to marry the man who raped her - how could there be, when in the one case of rape given, rape is a crime that reaps capital punishment?
