Post below is somewhat incorrect. Two people in this story had already been convicted and even plead guilty. The person here isn't just going to court initially, but instead has appealed all the way uo to the Indiana supreme court, which really kind of sucks. I still do hold that this article is reasonably click-bait, but much less than I originally said.
This looks like non-full-story clickbait.
Lets read the article!
Cara and Joel Wieneke, the legal duo who represent Layman, said that at the heart of the argument they will be presenting to the supreme court is the issue of agency. “The plain language of the statute requires the defendant or one of his accomplices to do the killing. In Blake’s case neither he nor any of his co-perpetrators killed anybody – this was a justified killing by the person who was protecting his home,” Joel Wieneke told the Guardian.
Seems to just be a case of "this isn't going to hold up in court" rather than a "these people are actually getting 55 years in prison".
Charged does not mean convicted, I wouldn't be surprised if this is a "scare the crap out of a kid" sort of goal of the prosecutor, rather than actually being the intention of putting people in jail for as long as they are stating.