The decision by California’s Board of Parole Hearings to grant parole to David Allen Funston, a convicted serial child molester, has sparked outrage across the state. Funston, who is serving multiple life terms for horrific crimes against young children, will be released under the Elderly Parole Program—a controversial initiative that critics argue should not apply to violent offenders.
Funston’s parole hearing culminated on February 18, 2026, despite objections from Governor Gavin Newsom, who voiced his disapproval. The Governor’s office released a statement declaring, “The Governor doesn’t agree with the outcome,” highlighting the political discontent surrounding the board’s decision. Such statements reflect a growing hesitation among lawmakers regarding the criteria being used for early release.
In 1999, Funston was convicted on 16 counts of kidnapping and child molestation for crimes committed in the Sacramento area from 1995 to 1996. His offenses were particularly heinous, involving the abduction and assault of children aged 4 to 7. Accounts from the original trials reveal a chilling reality—Funston used a Barbie doll to lure a young girl, wielding a knife to enforce his control over victims. One girl shared that she was taken to a remote area where she endured horrific abuse.
The Elderly Parole Program, designed to alleviate overcrowding in prisons, has faced intense scrutiny, especially with its application to sex offenders. Under this program, inmates over the age of 50 who have served at least 20 years may be considered for early release. However, the inclusion of violent sexual offenders raises profound questions about public safety. Critics assert that Funston’s age should not overshadow the severity of his crimes.
Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper expressed strong opposition to the board’s decision, stating, “What the hell is going on in California? Compassionate release? Where is the compassion for the victims? There’s zero compassion for the victims.” His straightforward remarks underscore the frustrations of advocates and families, who worry that Funston’s release poses a serious threat to community safety.
One former victim spoke out passionately against Funston’s release, declaring, “He shouldn’t be breathing the same air that we’re breathing at all… That man is a monster.” Such emotional testimonies reflect the indelible scars left on victims and challenge the very fabric of justice in cases of such grave magnitude.
Media coverage of Funston’s case has triggered broader discussions on necessary policy changes to prevent the release of dangerous offenders. Anne Marie Schubert, a former Sacramento County District Attorney, called Funston “one sick individual,” advocating for a reexamination of the Elderly Parole Program’s criteria, particularly concerning sex offenders. Her position illustrates a growing consensus that some offenders should remain incarcerated indefinitely in light of their past actions.
In response to public outcries, legislative action is in motion. State Senator Roger Niello has introduced legislation to exclude sex offenders from eligibility under the Elderly Parole Program, making it clear that “That sort of offender doesn’t ever deserve to be released from prison.” In a complementary push, State Assemblymember Maggy Krell aims to implement a law requiring thorough evaluations of specific offenders for civil commitment before consideration of parole. This legislative initiative seeks to ensure that offenders like Funston cannot exploit loopholes in the system.
The community’s response to this case illustrates deep-seated fears about how to balance compassion with public safety—a dilemma that is growing increasingly complex. While the Elderly Parole Program was established with good intentions, its impact has raised serious alarms about the release of violent offenders and the potential risks to society.
As California grapples with the implications of Funston’s release, lawmakers may face intensified pressure to tighten the legal frameworks governing parole eligibility. The challenge lies in guaranteeing that credible threats to public safety do not slip through the cracks of reform initiatives aimed at reducing prison populations.
California now stands at a pivotal moment, tasked with the responsibility of reconciling compassionate prison reform with strict measures that prioritize community safety. The ongoing debates surrounding Funston’s case and others like it will shape future policies and the integrity of the state’s criminal justice system.
Public vigilance remains high, and the powerful voices of victims continue to echo throughout the discourse, illustrating the enduring consequences of such violent crimes. The necessity for a justice system that accurately reflects the severity of offenses is clearer than ever.
"*" indicates required fields
