They were sentenced under the old 7- and 14-year laws. Many have now served 20, 30, even 40+ years. They completed education programs, vocational training, counseling, and rehabilitation courses. They have years — sometimes decades — without disciplinary infractions. They are not driving the violence or chaos currently gripping many prison systems.

Yet when they appear before parole boards, they hear the same phrases:

• “Not enough time.”
• “Due to the nature of the crime.”

Those explanations might sound authoritative. But after decades of transformation, they no longer stand up to facts, law, or basic moral reasoning.

The Facts That Undermine “Not Enough Time”

1. Decades of Documented Rehabilitation

Many long-served lifers have built spotless institutional records:

• Certificates and completed programs
• Steady work history
• Positive psychological evaluations
• 5, 10, 15+ years discipline-free

Time plus transformation reduces risk — it does not increase it. If rehabilitation is the stated purpose of corrections, then decades of documented reform must mean something.

2. Prison Systems Are in Crisis

Across the country, prisons face severe understaffing, gang influence, rising violence, and preventable deaths. In Georgia, the United States Department of Justice found patterns of “deliberate indifference” in state prisons, citing systemic failures that undermine safety for incarcerated people and staff alike.

Continuing to warehouse rehabilitated individuals while facilities struggle under dangerous conditions does not enhance public safety — it worsens institutional instability.

3. Courts Have Recognized Overcrowding as Unconstitutional

In Brown v. Plata, the Supreme Court held that extreme overcrowding in California prisons violated the Eighth Amendment and ordered population reductions. The Court recognized that when prisons become dangerously overburdened, release mechanisms are not optional — they are constitutional remedies.

Releasing appropriate, rehabilitated individuals is not reckless. It is often necessary.

What the Law Actually Says

Parole is not supposed to be a rubber stamp — or a permanent punishment extension.

In Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, the Supreme Court held that when state law creates an expectation of parole eligibility, individuals are entitled to meaningful process. Decisions cannot be purely arbitrary.

Courts have also cautioned against relying forever on the original offense as the sole reason to deny release.

In In re Lawrence, the California Supreme Court emphasized that parole decisions must focus on current dangerousness, not simply the gravity of a decades-old crime. Federal appellate cases such as Biggs v. Terhune and Hayward v. Marshall similarly recognized that the passage of time and evidence of rehabilitation weaken reliance on the commitment offense alone.

In other words: the older the crime and the stronger the record of reform, the weaker “nature of the crime” becomes as justification.

The Moral Argument: Punishment Must Have an End

Justice is not vengeance.

If a person has:

• Served decades beyond their minimum term
• Demonstrated genuine rehabilitation
• Maintained a clean record
• Proven they are no longer a present danger

Then continuing to incarcerate them because “that’s how it was” becomes retribution masquerading as public safety.

A sentence cannot be transformed into permanent denial simply because parole boards are unwilling to recognize change.

The Practical Argument: Smart Release Improves Safety

Releasing carefully screened, rehabilitated lifers:

• Eases overcrowdingReduces strain on understaffed facilities
• Allows resources to focus on those who pose active threats
• Improves safety for correctional officers
• Improves safety for incarcerated individuals
• Strengthens overall public safety outcomes

Keeping low-risk, reformed individuals behind bars while systems collapse under pressure is not tough on crime — it is administratively reckless.

Concrete Legal Points for Advocacy

If you are writing to the press, contacting lawmakers, or posting publicly, anchor your message in these principles:

1. Demand Individualized, Evidence-Based Decisions

Parole denials must cite current, evidence-based reasons. A rote citation to the original offense or a vague “not enough time” does not meet the meaningful review standard articulated in Greenholtz.

2. Emphasize That Time and Rehabilitation Matter

Cases like In re Lawrence and the Biggs/Hayward line make clear that demonstrated reform and decades of positive conduct cannot be ignored.

3. Connect Parole Denial to Prison Conditions

When overcrowding contributes to unconstitutional conditions, as recognized in Brown v. Plata, refusing to release rehabilitated individuals worsens the problem — and may compound constitutional violations.

The Bottom Line

“Not enough time” loses its force after 30 or 40 years.

“The nature of the crime” cannot permanently outweigh a lifetime of demonstrated transformation.

Decades of rehabilitation should not be erased by a single line in a denial letter.

If parole systems exist to evaluate who is safe to return to society, then long-served lifers who have proven change deserve genuine, transparent consideration — not automatic rejection.

Justice delayed for decades becomes justice denied.

And justice cannot wait any longer.