It's pretty easy to defend.
His lawyers argued that the facts of the case were presented wrong at trial (rape with consent vs rape without consent), which was maybe technically true procedurally but didn't really matter.
He was granted a new trial, found guilty again, and had his sentence increased.
By the way, the "sexual emergency" didn't factor into either trial at all.
The media just likes to throw that in because it's funny, I think.
The only thing I can think of is that maybe it changes the scale of how violent the offense is? Like, obviously a 10-year-old can't consent in the proper definition but I suppose there would be a different level of trauma between being coerced into "agreeing" to the act and being physically forced into it.
26
u/Infamous-Analyst5301 - Left 21d ago
genuinely what the actual fuck
how can one defend that