The story of Lionel Tate is doubly tragic. Tate, a 12-year-old boy, was convicted of maliciously beating six-year-old Tiffany Eunick to death earlier last month. As punishment, a Florida judge sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole.

Tate is a murderer, plain and simple. But not even the prosecution thought he deserved to go to jail for life.

In Tate's case, two of the most egregious problems of American's judicial system combined to prevent justice from being served. First, though he was only 12 when he killed Eunick, Tate was tried as an adult. And when he was convicted, the judge had no choice but to abide by mandatory sentencing laws, incarcerating Tate for life.

As America has cracked down on crime in recent years, prosecutors have increasingly treated adolescents accused of violent crimes as adults. There is a widespread belief that violent crimes should be held to a greater standard of punishment, regardless of age. But why should violent crimes be held to different standards than other crimes? Of course, a 12-year-old murderer should receive a harsher punishment than a 12-year-old burglar, but should a 12-year-old killer really receive the same punishment as one who is 25?

Juveniles are normally held to different standards than adults due to their emotional immaturity and potential for change. In Tate's case, this seems particularly relevant-his mental capacity was far below average for his age. Though the 170-pound Tate may be as big as an adult, there is little doubt that he was emotionally immature.

In addition, Tate's sentencing points to the inherent problems concerning mandatory sentencing. Even the prosecutors felt the Tate sentence was too harsh; they favored a plea-bargain sentencing the boy to three years imprisonment, followed by house arrest and ten years probation-an offer rejected by the defense prior to the case. Tragically, once he was convicted, the judge had little choice but to impose the mandatory sentence. Florida laws have made it nearly impossible for judges to use their discretion when sentencing violent offenders; as a result, the extraordinary circumstances of this case were not taken into account.

Tate's fate lies in the hands of Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who can offer clemency to the boy. Luckily, it seems that Bush will respond to the significant public outcry by commuting the sentence. But this safeguard should not have been necessary.

Juvenile violence is rampant in today's society, where school shootings seem to occur every other week. The answer is not stricter sentences to deter offenders, but programs to help troubled youths before they commit crimes. Dangerous juveniles certainly need to be locked up, but these decisions need to be made on a case-by-case basis. These are decisions that should not depend on blanket sentencing laws-individual responses are needed for unique circumstances.