Teacher Caught in Act with Student Will Not Have to Register as Sex Offender
Teacher Caught in Act with Student Will Not Have to Register as Sex Offender Save Email Print
Posted: 4:13 PM Jul 17, 2008
 Last Updated: 7:04 PM Jul 17, 2008
 Reporter: 13 News
12 comments
A | A | A

MANHATTAN, Kan. - Katherine Harder, 31, appeared for arraignment and sentencing in the Pottawatomie County District Court Thursday.

Harder was found by police in a parked car with a 17-year-old student near Tuttle Creek Dam March 26, 2008.

Harder pled no contest to an amended count of Aggravated Endangering of a Child. The amended count is a level 9 person felony.

Harder was found guilty and sentenced to 6 months with the Dept. of Corrections. She was granted immediate probation for a period of 12 months.

The amended charge was more severe then the charge of Unlawful Sexual Relations, but does not require registration pursuant to the Offender Registration Act, however, the charge cannot be expunged.

The Pottawatomie County Attorney's office says this resolution was reached after extensive discussions involving the victim and his family, the state and the defendant and her attorney.
More Stories
Lawrence Man In Wheelchair Sells Hotdogs

Spirit Of Kansas Recap

Kansas Weatherman Looks Back On Long Career

Hot Dog Vendor A Fixture In Lawrence

 Area Celebrates Fourth Of July With Parades And Church Service

Explosive Devices Found In KCK House With Body

Suspect Arrested In Double Homicide In Wichita

4-Year-Old NW Kansas Boy Dies In Forklift Accident
Post Your Comments
First Name:
Location:
Enter Comments: characters left
Email (optional):
By posting this comment I have read and agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy:
You must agree to the Terms of Service to continue.
Read Comments
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Posted by: TJ Location: ks on Jul 19, 2008 at 09:07 PM
That is so wrong. What 1 yr probation that is bs. I am a woman and if that was a man it would be a alot longer.Who her attorney he will make alot of money stickin up for people like that MALE/FEMALE doesnt matter. Looks like home school should be the way to go your kids will be safer.
Posted by: Anonymous Location: Tapuka on Jul 19, 2008 at 07:23 PM
If it would have been a MALE teacher the punishment probably would have been more severe.
Posted by: Me on Jul 18, 2008 at 06:57 PM
Oh so he was 17 that makes it OK!! She may not have forced him but in my eyes she was supposed to be a role model not a nude model. And what if next time they are younger than 17? Could it have been prevented if she WAS registerd??
Posted by: Lucinda Location: Topeka on Jul 18, 2008 at 05:05 PM
Logan, I agree with you. Poor judgment in such things as a teacher having sex with a 17 year old student, or someone peeing in public is, in my opinion, not something a person should even be arrested for. Possibly they should just be fined for it the way we are when we have lapses in judgment and find ourselves speeding or running a red light. And teachers should be fired. They're in the wrong profession for such poor judgment.
Posted by: logan Location: topeka on Jul 18, 2008 at 11:58 AM
HOPE, 16 is the KS age for Parental Consent. Highly doubtful a parent would consent sex with a teacher. As for not having to register, I am kind of unsure. If a man caught peeing in public has to register, how os her crime lesser and deserving of a lesser punishment?
Posted by: Anonymous Location: ne ks on Jul 18, 2008 at 10:39 AM
I agree that she should not have to register. This was not a sex offense on a child. The 17 year old is just as much to blame. He is plenty old enough to know better and could have EASILY prevented it. I also agree that she should never be allowed to teach again. I only wish that the standards would be applied evenly, if this teacher were a man, he would be in jail right now for rape.
Posted by: Anonymous Location: ne ks on Jul 18, 2008 at 08:33 AM
Although that conviction does not require registration, the judge could could have ordered that she register because it was a sexually motivated crime. I believe "sexually motivated" crimes do require registration, but I could be mistaken.
Posted by: Hope Location: NE Kansas on Jul 18, 2008 at 12:20 AM
He was of 17. At 17 I was doing my own thing and had my own thoughts. I lived on my own at 16 and still went to school. I was by no means a child. The problem is she should not be alowed to teach EVER. I agree at 17, she is not a sex offender of children. 16 is th estates leagel age of consent
Posted by: paris Location: manhattan, ks on Jul 17, 2008 at 10:20 PM
he wasn't under-age. she lost her job and her way of life for having relations with a student. justice served.
Posted by: Lucinda Location: Topeka on Jul 17, 2008 at 08:56 PM
I think the major point here is that she was a teacher and he a student. Apparently she's not teacher material. Maybe she'll get a job in a bar now and stay away from places where her poor ethics can influence young people. I don't think she should have to register as a sex offender. I'd feel the same way about a male teacher and a 17 year old girl. They should not teach but I don't see them as sex abusers of children, nor do I see them as rapists. Seventeen is pretty advanced for that. I would not want them teaching my kids becasue their ethics are flawed.
Posted by: Me Location: AV on Jul 17, 2008 at 05:31 PM
so we pick n choose who has to register now?? Thats a bit crazy. The kid was under age no matter what!!
Posted by: Dennis Location: USA on Jul 17, 2008 at 05:30 PM
Another perfect example that justice is NOT blind. If it had been a male teacher, who knows how many years he would be sent to prison.
Posted by: Benedict Location: Oahu on Jul 17, 2008 at 05:09 PM
Hmmmmm....17 year old boy.