She could become pregnant far more easily having sexual intercourses with less educated partners. Being already an adult I could make objections as a dad, but I couldn't really forbid her anything anymore.

Is it worse to have sex with a teacher or to be killed by a bullet or a bomb? If being killed is the worst thing, and it can happen more easily to a soldier, then military schools should be forbidden to accept minors to groom them when still underage and more easily influenced to make them become professional soldiers when they turn adults.

I agreee about poor ethics, but criminal charges are totally excessive and out of place.

The law's rationale is quite simple. Teachers, particularly those who teach young people, have a high degree of power and influence over their pupils. This law is intended to shield said pupils. Your example of the stripper doesn't really apply.

The best of intentions usually make the worst kind of laws.  Ever heard of the War on Drugs or Prohibition? 

The students involved with her were 18+ and more than capable of making their own decisions.  Don't be the type of busy body person who pushes your opinions on others by making unnecessary laws. 

I agree, I love how this thread has generated so many intelligent responses, some of the users posts have been very interesting.

In all honesty, when I was 18, I was kindof into two of my teachers. All I'm saying is theres no way in hell I would be complaining if anything happened. lol.

These guys must be even more popular in school now, lol!

But yeah, the real victims here are her family and her kids; her husband must be devastated. And if it were the other way round, with a male teacher gang-banging five female students, I think the situation would be very different. She still shouldnt go to prison though!

By that line of rhetoric, are only laws passed with the worst intentions ever good?

Perhaps you do understand the law's rationale after all, and merely did a terrible job of expressing your disapproval of it? Your example is certainly poor, seeing as how you analogized the relationship between a group of high school students and their teacher to a relationship between a professional and her clientele (bonus points: the person who's approval is sought by the other party is precisely the opposite in these two situations). That led me to try to explain the law.
 My apologies if I mistook your outrage for honest confusion. Rest assured, my busy body will stop pushing any attempts at unnecessary discussion with you.

As an aside, I also don't believe this behavior warrants jail time, at least not without a showing of actual coercion. Unethical and illegal behavior are different, after all. This concludes my post.

What she did was morally and ethically wrong. I don't think she should have had to go to prison over this though. Terminated employment would have been enough.

I understand why politicians and others try to make laws like these to try and prevent certain things from happening, but they don't do any good.  They're just complete overkill.  Sometimes, like my two examples show, they even backfire and do more harm than good.  Just because I understand why certain people do certain things doesn't mean I agree with it.  I think the law is a terrible law.  If you're already fired for cause and lose your ability to ever teach again, prison time is totally outrageous.  It wasn't a violent crime.   It's a waste of taxpayer dollars to be fed and give shelter in prison for having group sex with horny eighteen year olds in the privacy of your own home.  Disgusting as it may be.

And it's not even disgusting! Bill Clinton having sex with Hillary, now that's disgusting!   

Being a teacher people put faith in her that their children are safe in her care and she has to up hold a professional manner.