In a few weeks, we will know the fate of Danielle Walls, 27. She is a former Clairemont High School history teacher who had sex with a male student two years ago.

She pleaded guilty in July to five criminal charges, including having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor and a misdemeanor charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor for providing the student drugs and alcohol.

According to reports in the San Diego Union-Tribune, Walls faces a possible sentence of up to five years and six months in prison. The hearing takes place on Sept. 26.

Prosecutors said Walls had a sexual relationship with the then-16-year-old boy over several months, beginning in April 2004. The boy was a student in her 10th grade history class.

The D.A. obtained hotel records, credit card receipts, cell phone records and text messages sent between Walls and the boy to support the charges.

To her credit, District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis has treated Walls like other sex offenders. And Dumanis has taken an active role in promoting “Jessica’s Law,” an initiative on the November ballot that would require a variety of measures to protect the public from convicted sex offenders.

But when people think of sex offenders, they aren’t thinking of a 27-year-old woman who had sex with a 16-year-old male.

And California didn’t think she was either until a few years ago. It was only a few decades ago that California did not have a gender-neutral law with regard to what is known as statutory rape – and some states still don’t.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld California’s law against a challenge by an adult male. He claimed the law deprived him of equal protection because the law did not make it criminal for a female adult to be charged with the same crime. The court found that the state’s concern with unwanted pregnancies was more than enough to justify the distinction.

The California Legislative changed the law so that women can be charged as well as men for having consensual sex with minors.

California now makes it a crime for anyone to have consensual sex with a minor. Penal Code 261.5 even makes it a crime (though hardly ever enforced) for minors to have sex with each other.

And that’s what brings me to the sentencing of Danielle Walls in a few weeks. The D.A. and the judge, if they are consistent, should order Walls to register for life as a sex offender. It’s discretionary.

There’s no doubt in most minds that if Walls was a man and had oral or anal sex with a male student, she would be facing, at the very least, having to register as a sex offender. She’d be going to prison for a long time. Even as a male teacher who had sex with a female student, she would probably get prison time.

But it’s not likely in Walls’ case. She’s a woman. Most men in and out of law enforcement think there’s nothing wrong with older women having consensual sex with male teens. It’s a fantasy come true. And even women (avid watchers of “Desperate Housewives”) might understand why a woman may seek sex with a strapping teen.

But don’t change the scenario to male teachers and male students or male teachers and female students.

And parents don’t like teachers getting it on with students under any circumstances.

And most would think that would always result in a zero-tolerance standard. Not so.

Because even with male teachers, some courts have not required jail time or required them to register as sex offenders for having sex with minor girls. Why? Because judges sympathize with the sex offender’s family. They don’t want dad sent to prison or forced to register. Because that would mean everyone in the neighborhood would know that dad is a sex offender. Oh, and that’s the purpose of sex offender notice.

Another factor for Walls is that she’s a licensed real estate agent. She would lose her license. Recent cases uphold the Department of Real Estate revoking the licenses of real estate agents who are registered sex offenders. As one court put it, “they can’t be trusted with the keys to someone’s home.”

The California Supreme Court a few months ago addressed the matter as to whether those convicted of statutory rape must register as sex offenders. The law required judges to make men register for having oral sex with a minor but not vaginal sex. The court found the discrepancy irrational and struck down that requirement.

The problem is the whole law is laced with discrepancies, unfairness and double standards. We should send violent sex offenders to prison. That’s where they should register – for life.