The state’s parole system is again under scrutiny in Sacramento as California legislators move to tighten rules that allow some sex offenders with life sentences to become eligible for parole at an older age. The effort gained momentum after two men convicted of multiple sexual assaults against children in the Sacramento region were found suitable for parole in 2025 by California’s Board of Parole Hearings, setting off political debate over whether a parole process that starts at age 50 goes far enough to protect the public.
Under California’s elderly parole statutes, many inmates serving life sentences may become eligible for a first parole hearing once they are at least 50 years old and have served at least 20 years. Lawmakers and some members of the public have challenged that benchmark, arguing it is too low for people convicted of sexually abusing young children.
The cases fueling the political push include David Allen Funston and Gregory Lee Vogelsang, both found suitable for parole in 2025. Funston was 67 when he received his parole grant after serving 27 years, and his original sentence included three consecutive 25-years-to-life terms plus an additional 20-year sentence. Vogelsang was 57 at the time of his parole suitability finding after serving 27 years, and his original sentence was 355 years-to-life.
Democratic Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen, who represents Elk Grove and the region where the offenses occurred, is the author of one of the main bills, according to the reports. Nguyen’s proposal would raise the earliest parole eligibility age for sex offenders with life sentences to 65, and she has said she is not seeking to repeal elderly parole entirely. In comments reported by CalMatters, Nguyen said, “I think rehabilitation is a thing — people can rehabilitate,” but she added that she does not know whether people who “molested little boys, ages 5 to 11,” can change in a way that addresses her concerns.
Nguyen’s bill would also alter California’s mental-health screening process for some people who are serving life sentences. Under the proposal, the parole board and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would be required to refer sex offenders with life sentences for psychological evaluation through the Department of State Hospitals, which can choose to commit someone indefinitely to treatment if officials determine the person meets criteria used for a “sexually violent predator.” Under current law described in the reporting, state hospital screening applies to sex offenders who are not sentenced to life sentences and will be released without a recommendation from the parole board.
The bill gained support during a legislative committee hearing on April 7, when colleagues requested to be listed as co-authors and the measure passed by an 8-0 vote in an Assembly Public Safety Committee meeting, according to the reports. Republican Assemblymember Tom Lackey, a retired California Highway Patrol officer, criticized the parole system in comments reported by CalMatters, saying the way the law currently exists is a “travesty to justice” and that “the public is finally over this stuff.”
While lawmakers debate whether age-based eligibility should be raised, the two parole cases have already produced outcomes that further increased attention on how the parole board handles decisions. For Funston, his parole grant was upheld and finalized in an en banc ruling on Feb. 18 after the entire parole board reviewed the decision of two commissioners who had originally determined he was not an unreasonable threat to public safety. Attorney Maya Emig, who represented Funston, said at the time of a Sept. 24, 2025 parole hearing that the board’s decision was “solid” and “legally sound,” and that she described what she said was deep understanding of the individual’s risk.
Despite that finalization, Funston’s situation shifted on Feb. 26, when Placer County filed new criminal charges against him from an old unprosecuted investigation. After the filing, prison officials handed him directly over to local law enforcement, and he remained in the Roseville jail potentially awaiting a new trial. Vogelsang’s parole suitability review also moved through additional steps: after his finding was sent for an en banc review last month, the parole board scheduled a further hearing to determine whether his parole should be rescinded, and he remained in state custody as the next determination was pending.
The broader legislative push is not limited to one party or one bill, but it is also met with opposition from organizations that support the concept of parole as a tool to reduce incarceration. The reporting said some civil rights and prisoner advocacy groups have raised concerns that the proposals could weaken parole laws that have been used to reduce California’s prison population, pointing to parole’s track record and arguing that risk decisions rely on structured assessments rather than age alone.
In defending the existing approach, former parole board executive officer Jennifer Shaffer said parole decisions are governed by a requirement to release people if they no longer pose a current, unreasonable risk to the public. Shaffer told CalMatters that the board uses about 70 experienced forensic psychologists who evaluate risk prior to parole hearings, and she said the risk assessments are based on “decades of well-established research.” She also said that when political decisions lead the board to deny parole despite rehabilitation, courts can intervene.
Even as advocates argue parole has worked, Republican lawmakers have continued to question how risk assessments applied to these two cases. In remarks reported after a March press conference held outside a board meeting, Lackey said anyone who voted to release the men should be removed and argued that releasing a “child molester back into the community” puts additional children at risk. The debate has also raised questions about how “static” facts of past crimes are treated under a California Supreme Court decision from 2008 known as the Lawrence decision, which held that the facts of a crime are “static” or “immutable” and that denial of parole requires evidence the offender poses danger after rehabilitation.
Nguyen’s measure is described as having momentum, even as advocates warn that changing parole consideration rules for people already sentenced could face legal challenges. Keith Wattley, who founded UnCommon Law and represents some people with life sentences in their parole and reentry processes, said elderly parole is one mechanism that has “proven to work.” Wattley said he had not found evidence that sex offenders released through elderly parole committed new sex offenses after release, and he argued that public anger can be disconnected from what he said is a person’s current risk.