Three South Florida teenagers who stand accused of setting another teen on fire will be charged as adults, according to the Associated Press. Denver Jarvis and Matthew Bent, both 15, and Jesus Mendez, 16, were charged with one count each of attempted second-degree murder on Monday.
The Broward County State Attorney's office accuses Jarvis of pouring rubbing alcohol on 15-year-old Michael Brewer, while Mendez lit the boy on fire and Bent directed the attack.
The altercation stemmed from an argument over a video game and escalated when the victim accused the defendants of trying to steal his father's bicycle.
We fully appreciate the seriousness of these allegations. The victim sustained burns over 65 percent of his body and is still in critical condition. He will likely suffer for the rest of his life as a result of this horrendous attack.
But the choice to try these children as adults is a mistake, and yet another example of a widespread problem in Florida's judicial system.
In transferring this case to adult criminal courts, the judiciary is taking the position that these children are beyond juvenile rehabilitation. It is unreasonable to assume that at the age of 15, or even at 16 in the case of one of the defendants, these children are unredeemable.
To put them into the adult prison system, which is no doubt where they will end up after extended trials and lengthy appeals processes, is entirely counterproductive.
Florida prisons are not the place that troubled child-criminals will receive the therapy necessary to give them a chance at a normal life outside of prison. On the contrary, they will likely emerge as hardened adult-criminals.
Further, in choosing to try the teens as adults, the court exposes them to the harsher sentences available in adult court; an attempted second-degree murder charge carries a maximum sentence of 30 years.
If these teens are found guilty, we believe they deserve serious punishment (not to mention serious psychological rehabilitation). But the sentences that many Florida juvenile offenders receive are clearly excessive.
This decision comes on the same day that the Supreme Court began hearing arguments about whether juveniles can be locked away forever for their crimes.
The two cases before the Supreme court involve Florida men serving life terms with no chance of parole for crimes committed while they were teenagers. Their lawyers argue that life sentences for non-homicide crimes, when given to people so young, are cruel and unusual - a violation of the Constitution. They argue that young people have a greater capacity to change, that they are redeemable.
As a state that does not quite share those views, Florida is home to over 70 percent of the nation's juvenile defendants who are serving life sentences for crimes other than homicide. With just over a 6 percent share of the total U.S. population, the disproportionate number of juvenile life sentences that Florida hands down is shocking.
We don't want to paint these juveniles as innocent victims. Joe Sullivan, one of the men included in the Supreme Court case, is serving life in prison for raping an elderly woman after a home invasion. An act like this is almost beyond comprehension. But Sullivan was 13 years old. It is unreasonable to expect a boy this young to fully understand these actions, and outrageous give him a life sentence.
The other defendant, Terrance Graham, was implicated in armed robberies when he was 16 and 17. The fact that even lesser crimes like this are receiving life sentences demonstrates that changes need to be made to Florida's judicial procedures.
Is Florida's problem cruel teens or cruel courts?
