Summary
The California Legislature is moving to change state rules that allow “elderly parole” consideration for some sex offenders, setting up a direct legislative challenge to the parole system after two men convicted of multiple child sexual assaults were found suitable for release in 2025.
The dispute centers on how long “elderly” eligibility should extend when a person was sentenced to life terms and how the state evaluates whether the offender remains a present, unreasonable risk to the public after years of imprisonment. The proposals follow what lawmakers described as high-profile outcomes, and they are now drawing support and opposition inside the Legislature and from advocacy groups.
Democratic Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen, whose district includes the Sacramento-area region where David Allen Funston and Gregory Lee Vogelsang committed their offenses, authored one of the main bills. Nguyen’s measure would raise the earliest parole age for sex offenders with life sentences to 65, rather than the current 50-year threshold that applies under elderly parole statutes.
Nguyen also said she is not seeking to end elderly parole entirely. “I think rehabilitation is a thing — people can rehabilitate,” Nguyen said, but she argued that, in the specific circumstances of the crimes at issue, she doubts the concept of rehabilitation can work on the timeline set by existing law. “But when you’ve done things like molested little boys, ages 5 to 11, I just don’t know that you can change from that,” she said.
Nguyen added that eligibility after long periods of incarceration does not resolve her concern. “It doesn’t matter 20 years. I don’t know that you can necessarily change yourself from wanting or stopping yourself from molesting little children. And as a mother to two young girls, this scares me,” she said.
In addition to the change in parole eligibility age, Nguyen’s bill would require California’s parole board and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to refer sex offenders with life sentences for psychological evaluation through the Department of State Hospitals. Under the hospital’s process, the department can choose to commit a person indefinitely to treatment if officials deem the person to be a “sexually violent predator.”
Under current state practice described in the reporting, the state hospital screening applies to sex offenders who are not sentenced to life sentences and who will be released without a recommendation from the parole board. Nguyen’s bill would broaden that screening route to life-sentenced offenders considered under elderly parole.
Nguyen’s legislation moved quickly through an Assembly Public Safety Committee meeting on April 7, with colleagues requesting to be added as co-authors and the bill passing 8-0. Republican Assemblymember Tom Lackey, a retired California Highway Patrol officer, characterized the existing law and the parole outcomes as unjust. “The way the law currently exists is a travesty to justice,” Lackey told CalMatters. “It’s ridiculous. It’s absurd, and it’s extreme. I think the public is finally over this stuff.”
The parole outcomes that brought new attention to elderly parole unfolded against the background of changes first introduced in 2014 and later adjusted in 2020, when California lowered the elderly parole eligibility age to 50. After Gov. Gavin Newsom raised concerns this spring about Funston and Vogelsang being released, he used his authority to request that the parole board conduct further reviews of each man’s parole hearings.
Funston, 67, was found suitable for parole in 2025 after serving 27 years. According to the reporting, the parole grant was upheld and finalized in an en banc ruling on Feb. 18, when the entire board reviewed the decision of two commissioners. But on Feb. 26, the day of his release, Placer County filed new criminal charges against Funston from an old unprosecuted investigation, and prison officials handed him directly to local law enforcement; he remained in Placer County custody in a Roseville jail described as potentially awaiting a new trial.
Vogelsang, 57, was also found suitable for parole in 2025 and initially went through an en banc review; the board then scheduled a further hearing to decide whether his parole should be rescinded. The reporting said Vogelsang remained in state custody and would either be released or return to serve his life sentence.
The Legislature’s debate is also tied to broader legal standards for parole decision-making. The reporting noted that a 2008 California Supreme Court case known as the Lawrence decision found that the facts of a crime are “static” or “immutable,” meaning they do not automatically justify denying parole decades later when there is no evidence the prisoner poses a danger after rehabilitation.
Jennifer Shaffer, a former executive officer of the Board of Parole Hearings, said in the reporting that “Legally, the board must release someone if they no longer pose a current, unreasonable risk to the public.” She also said the board employs about 70 experienced forensic psychologists who evaluate each person’s risk prior to a parole hearing, with risk assessments based on research on what drives criminal behavior.
Even with those descriptions, some lawmakers and supporters of the bills argued that the process does not fit offenders like Funston and Vogelsang. Lackey said he believed Funston still had urges and that he controlled those urges by “splashing water on his face,” as reflected in selected excerpts from parole hearing transcripts.
Meanwhile, advocates for continued elderly parole argued the approach has helped reduce the state’s incarcerated population and can protect public safety. Keith Wattley, who founded the nonprofit UnCommon Law, said elderly parole is a mechanism that has “proven to work” and argued there has not been a documented instance of a person released under elderly parole for a sex offense committing another sex offense after release. Advocacy groups raising concerns about the bills said the proposals could weaken parole laws they argue have helped reduce California’s prison population.