California’s “elderly parole” rules are fueling fresh outrage after a brutal child predator was approved for release—despite the governor publicly objecting and victims pleading that he should never walk free.
Story Snapshot
- David Allen Funston, convicted in 1999 of kidnapping and molesting six young children, was approved for “elderly parole” after the state twice found him suitable for release.
- Gov. Gavin Newsom asked for the parole board to reconsider, but reporting indicates he lacks authority to simply overturn the decision.
- Victims and the original prosecutor described renewed trauma and fear, while the board cited rehabilitation programs, remorse, and a low-risk assessment.
- The case is intensifying bipartisan skepticism about whether California’s sentencing reforms prioritize public safety and justice for victims.
What the parole board approved—and why it’s triggering backlash
California’s Board of Parole Hearings approved release for David Allen Funston, a Sacramento-area offender convicted of 16 counts tied to the kidnapping and molestation of six children ages 4 to 7 in the mid-1990s. A judge once described him as “the monster parents fear the most.” The board’s approval followed a September 2025 suitability hearing and a February 2026 review, with commissioners pointing to therapy, self-help, and stated remorse.
At the center of the backlash is not just the underlying crime, but the pathway to eligibility. Under California’s elderly parole framework, inmates who meet age and time-served requirements can seek release if they do not pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. Critics argue that labeling people “elderly” at comparatively young ages and applying the policy to violent sex offenders undermines the basic promise of long sentences imposed under earlier “one strike” approaches designed to protect children and deter repeat predation.
Newsom’s objection highlights a hard political reality: limited executive control
Gov. Gavin Newsom opposed Funston’s release and requested reconsideration by the parole board, but the reporting indicates the governor does not have a straightforward mechanism to reverse an elderly-parole grant the board has finalized. Funston’s attorney said there is no precedent for re-review after the board’s approval process concludes. That split—public outrage on one side, institutional limits on the other—helps explain why Californians increasingly doubt that top officials can, or will, correct what many see as obvious public-safety failures.
The case also exposes the tension within “reform” politics: elected leaders may champion broad decarceration frameworks, while still trying to distance themselves when a high-profile decision shocks the public conscience. When the executive branch signals disagreement but cannot change outcomes, the result is predictable: voters feel gaslit by a system that can identify a problem in press statements yet cannot stop it in practice. That frustration cuts across party lines, especially when the crime involves violence against children.
Victims’ reactions underscore the human cost of policy experiments
Victims told reporters that the parole decision reopened trauma from crimes committed when they were very young. One survivor said Funston “shouldn’t be breathing the same air” as the rest of society—an emotional response that, regardless of politics, reflects the stakes when government decisions revisit the most intimate and damaging harms. Prosecutors involved in the original case also expressed horror, arguing that the severity of the conduct should weigh more heavily than prison programming claims.
The parole board emphasized rehabilitation markers: participation in sex-offender treatment, insight into past behavior, and a plan to avoid reoffending. Those considerations are part of the state’s parole framework, but the public question is whether the system is equipped to confidently assess risk in the most extreme cases. Even a small error rate becomes unacceptable when the potential victims are children. The reporting leaves a key uncertainty unresolved: as of late February 2026 coverage, a final release date was not clearly established.
What lawmakers are signaling—and what’s still unclear
In response to the outcry, lawmakers and law-enforcement voices are pushing reforms to prevent violent sex offenders from benefiting from elderly parole. The policy dispute is narrower than some headlines suggest: the research here centers on a serial child molester and kidnapper, not a stepdaughter rape-and-pregnancy scenario, and the sources do not confirm that Funston’s parole was formally revoked—only that Newsom requested reconsideration and that the approval was described as effectively final by the defense.
Monster who raped step-daughter, got her pregnant could walk free under Gavin Newsom law https://t.co/LkXL56TJzf pic.twitter.com/CwA5dLS4Ax
— New York Post (@nypost) March 17, 2026
For conservatives—and many liberals who distrust “soft-on-crime” governance—the larger lesson is structural. When sentencing reforms widen eligibility and rely heavily on administrative judgments, citizens can feel that justice is being quietly rewritten by panels and process, not by voters. California’s debate now turns on whether lawmakers will draw bright lines around the worst offenses, or keep broad discretion and accept periodic cases that ignite outrage, erode trust, and deepen the sense that the system protects insiders more than families.
Sources:
“Ashamed of my behavior’: How ‘monster’ child molester got parole under Newsom-era law”
“Monster” Child Sexual Predator Granted Early Parole.