Why statutory authority goes too friggin far:
 
Tacoma, WASH
Hannity discusses the case:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259124,00.html
A reporter believes the teacher preyed on the student:
http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/story/6414358p-5718555c.html

Context

Statutory authority has gone haywire. Rebekah Todd, a 25 year old public school teacher, was sentenced to 6 months in prison for having sex with a student.

The original charges were first- and second-degree sexual misconduct with a minor. The negotiated plea was for the charge of attempted second-degree assault. The judge gave her the usual sentence for people who plead guilty to that charge.

*  Both first- and second-degree sexual misconduct specifically refer to abusing a position of authority to engage in sex with someone under 18. First-degree specifically refers to intercourse, and second-degree specifically refers to sexual contact.

*  Attempted second-degree assault means trying to physically harm another person.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.093
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.096
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.021

Introduction to the Two Problems

As soon as government gets involved in people's lives, government wants to tell them how to live it. In Washington, regulations apparently (yes, I'm assuming) prohibit persons in positions of authority from having relationships with those under their authority. If you do not see the hypocracy of such a regulation, then your brain is dead.

How can government tell people not to have relationships by virtue of their profession being a licensed practice? Simple: government creates a privilege: the practice. Next, government assumes you have no rights, and tells you in pages and pages of legal code what you can and cannot do. Finally, government oversteps its statutory authority by criminally punishing you for breaking the terms of the deal instead of ending the deal.

In this case, the prosecution painted the picture of an evil woman abusing her position of authority to compel a student of hers into a relationship. That would be coercion if any real crime happened. It didn't. Two people had sex, the government came in to stick its nose where it doesn't belong, and the boy ratted on his teacher. Considering she performed oral sex on him, one has to wonder whether the boy coerced the teacher into committing sexual acts.

The first problem is that people have too much power over each other and no rights:  privileges. The second problem is that statutory regulations are being written into criminal law, but we'll focus on the first problem so you get the full picture in order.

Example of the Problem

Here's a good newsgroup article explaining what special rules health practitioners have to live by; they can't have relationships with clients unless two years pass from the time the practitioner worked on the patient AND etc etc etc.

http://lists.powerblogs.com/pipermail/volokh/2007-January/008358.html

I'll quote the main point and the summary.

"  you may get disciplined even if the allegedly wronged party is entirely
   on your side (in fact, is now your loving spouse)." 

"  But the trouble here is that the rules go vastly further than these
   special situations, and vastly undervalue the countervailing reasons
   to limit regulation -- people's right to choose whom to date, have sex
   with, and marry, even including their dental hygienists, opticians,
   and the like"

Basically government is saying, "You can work 80 hours a week, but you can't have a relationship with any of your clients. Good luck getting married. Now get to work."

Summary

Once government owns your right to procreate, government can tell you when, where, how, and who you are going to be procreating with. When you fail to follow these rules, a prosecutor can do you a favor by reducing the charges. Favors are what America is all about.

First the government does you the favor of owning your right to have sex since you're too stupid to do it correctly. The government privileges you with a position of authority. Next, the government treats you like a teenager by telling you not to have sex unless it says you can. Then the government punishes you like a violent person if you don't follow the rules. Finally, people like Sean Hannity gawk at you for not having the sense to avoid punishment.

And last but not least, the government accuses you of abusing your authority.

Imagine Monica Lewinsky being jailed for what she did with Bill Clinton. Both Bill and Todd's accuser had positions of power. Todd's accuser was a minor possessing the privilege to jail any adult who wanted a relationship, and Bill Clinton had the power to fire Lewinsky. Both Todd's accuser and Lewinsky wanted a relationship, and one can just as easily accuse both these boys of coercing the girls into these acts.

You could argue that Todd's accuser's power is due to the fact that the teacher wanted a relationship, but you would still be wrong. Don't argue with Daddy. In all these cases, people have government-granted power over each other that they should not ever have, and you are perfectly happy with that.

Government also continues to assume radio talk show hosts have no right to speak. Hence, the possibility of the Fairness Doctrine returning to law. Doesn't it make sense for government to have some constitutionally-mandated restrictions on what rights it cannot take from us in a licensing deal? Or should government own all our rights and privilege us with them under threat of jail?

Recommendation

Quit creating privileges. Give people back their rights, and leave them alone.