Three years ago, 16-year-old A’Donte Washington was killed by police during an attempted robbery. The robbery, which took place in February of 2015, was committed by Washington and four friends. Body camera footage documents an officer who responded to the scene firing the shot that killed Washington; however, it will be his friends who serve time for his murder.

Lakeith Smith, who is now 18, will fare the hardest of the four men sentenced. While his counterparts— Jharvarske Jackson, Jadarien Hardy, and La’Anthony Washington— expect to serve 25-30 years in prison, Smith will be serving 65.

After the incident, three of the boys were charged with felony murder under Alabama’s accomplice liability laws. Section 13A-2-23 of the 2006 Alabama Code states that “a person is legally accountable for the behavior of another constituting a criminal offense” if he causes, aids, or fails to prevent the offense. This code applies to crimes labeled “inherently dangerous,” including burglary.

The body camera footage in question shows Washington running towards the officer with a gun, leading the court to rule that the latter acted in self-defense. This may be true— but why are Washington’s friends to be punished in his stead?

In an analysis of the law, Justia notes that is allows a defendant to be “ convicted of murder even if the defendant did not act with intent or reckless indifference,” a motivation that is mandatory for standard homicide sentencing.

Though the notion of being indicted for a crime you are documented as innocent of may be shocking, accomplice liability laws are in place in most US states. Smith’s case brings to mind a similar one in Illinois; in 2008, then-15-year-olds Justin Doyle and Cody Moore were charged with the murder of their friend, Travis Castle, during a burglary (Columbia Undergraduate Law Review). Though Castle was shot by the occupant of the burglarized house, he was cleared by the right to self-defense.

Accomplice liability laws can be traced back to the common law of the UK; however, there called “joint enterprise laws,” they are vastly different. In the UK, a defendant must have both “foresight” and “intention” to be found guilty, which is explicitly stated as irrelevant in American legislation.

Of the four defendants, Smith was the only one to challenge his indictment. The other three all accepted plea deals; though only one has been sentenced thus far, his 28-year sentence will most likely set a precedent for the other two.

Smith, on the other hand, likely will not even be eligible for parole at that point. His sentences— 10 years each for two counts of theft, 15 for burglary, and 30 for felony murder— are to be served consecutively.

More than one aspect of Lakeith’s case is problematic. Firstly, Smith’s age relative to his counterparts puts him in a different situation. Jackson is now 23 years old, Hardy and La’Anthony Washington are 22, and Smith is 18. Thus, though Smith was just 15 at the time of the incident, he was tried as an adult and sentenced as such.

Moreover, like most laws, those regarding accomplice liability are disproportionately applied by race. Since all defendants are African-American males aged 18-25, the disproportionality of American sentencing is extremely relevant. As cited by Randall Kennedy, “in 1990, for every 100,000 white Americans, 289 were in jail or prison; for every 100,000 black Americans, 1,860 were in jail or prison” (Race, Crime, and the Law- 1997). I see Smith’s case as part of such racial rhetoric.

The chief assistant district attorney, C.J. Robinson, is “very pleased” with the sentence, while Judge Sibley Reynolds thinks that “[Smith’s] attitude toward this court and life, in general, has been sour” (Angela Helm, the Root).