All laws are rational to themselves, and unless demonstrably perverse, rational to the jurisdiction to which they apply. There’s no pick and mix option, unless you think you should be free to choose which side of the road to drive on according to personal whim. The fact some other jurisdiction has a different road discipline doesn’t alter the rationality of having a single code of conduct for driving in any one jurisdiction.

Prem made a choice to not just live in, but to become a citizen of the US, which involved him swearing to defend its Laws, there’s no cultural get out from that, though perhaps he is pleading victimhood as mitigation. What Prem acknowledges is that he acted in a way that likely constitutes an assault by him (a US citizen) on a minor person, who was at the time, and still is, also a US citizen.

There are now two primary issues which no amount of cultural relativism can distract from, firstly how does Prem explain himself to the wider society in which he has chosen to live ? Even setting aside the legal connotations, there is a cultural primacy which raises real or alleged harm to a child above other considerations and all public figures have a clear culturally identifiable social duty to be wholly transparent where the abuse of a child has been suggested to have occurred.