The decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings to release David Allen Funston, a convicted serial child molester, under the Elderly Parole Program highlights serious flaws in the state’s parole system. Funston, sentenced to multiple life terms for heinous crimes against children, is set for release despite his background. The backlash is formidable, particularly among Republican lawmakers who are calling for immediate action from Governor Gavin Newsom.
The events began when the parole board granted Funston parole effective in early 2024, with discussions about his eligibility dating back to September 2023. Having been convicted on 16 counts related to kidnapping and child molestation in 1999, and now 64 years old, Funston qualifies for release due to the Elderly Parole Program. This program was expanded under Assembly Bill 3234 in 2020, lowering the age threshold for eligibility from 60 to 50, given that inmates have served a minimum of 20 years.
Critics voice concerns about the potential dangers posed by releasing individuals like Funston back into society. Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper spoke out, emphasizing the priority of victims, especially children, stating, “This can’t happen. It’s not OK.” His insistence reflects broader community anxieties surrounding the release of violent offenders. Former District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert echoed this sentiment, calling Funston “the poster child for why sex offenders should be exempt from elderly parole.” Outrage is palpable among those who prioritize public safety.
Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones and Senator Suzette Martinez Valladares have made powerful statements against the decision. Valladares expressed her disgust at the thought of a criminal like Funston being released, stating, “Hearing the news of Funston’s parole made me sick to my stomach.” This emotional response underscores the fear and concern in the community, further fueling calls for change in the legislative framework governing parole.
Governor Newsom’s role in this controversy is also under scrutiny. His office claims that he cannot reverse the parole board’s decision for non-murder cases like Funston’s, a claim that does not sit well with many critics. They argue that his past decisions, including his signing of the bill that expanded the Elderly Parole Program, have indirectly contributed to this situation. Jones accused the governor of being complicit, stating, “Gaslight Gavin knows exactly what he’s doing.” This suggests a mistrust in leadership that may further complicate public perception of the parole system.
The Elderly Parole Program was enacted to adhere to a federal court order addressing prison overcrowding. Proponents, including some public defenders, argue that it serves a purpose, saving the state money while ensuring public safety by focusing on inmates’ age and time served. However, the decision to release a serial child predator like Funston raises serious questions about the effectiveness and integrity of this approach. Critics argue that the welfare of the community, particularly vulnerable children, should take precedence over the technicalities of legal provisions.
As community anxieties mount, the possible release of Funston looms large. Residents of Sacramento and beyond fear that this decision may set a dangerous precedent for future parole hearings. The common question resonates: why should a convicted serial child predator be granted any expectation of freedom?
In the face of significant public outcry, lawmakers are exploring potential solutions. Republican Assemblymember Josh Hoover has proposed legislation to expand the governor’s ability to override parole decisions in cases involving violent felons. Meanwhile, a push from Democratic Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen aims to restrict elderly parole eligibility for sex offenders specifically. These legislative efforts reflect the urgency in addressing the perceived gaps in the current parole system.
The implications of the parole board’s decision reveal a complex interplay of legal principles, political forces, and the fundamental need for public safety. As legislators and constituents engage in dialogue about their expectations of justice, one fact stands clear: the system governing parole in California may need significant reform to better safeguard communities and ensure the welfare of victims remains a priority.
"*" indicates required fields
