California’s legal landscape is stirring controversy as some of the state’s infamous criminals, including killers, rapists, and child predators, now have a pathway to potential freedom much earlier than initially planned. This shift is a result of the contentious elderly parole law.
Originally, inmates had to be at least 60 years old and have served 25 years to become eligible for parole. However, a new legislation signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2020 slashed this threshold to age 50 and 20 years served. These changes, effective from 2021, were part of efforts to alleviate overcrowding in California’s prisons.
The legislative adjustment has sparked a backlash. Critics argue that it undermines sentences that were intentionally lengthy to keep dangerous criminals off the streets for life.
While this opportunity doesn’t assure immediate release, it does allow inmates to present their cases to a parole board. The board examines various factors, such as the inmate’s current age and potential threat to society, to make their decision.
Among those affected is Gregory Lee Vogelsang, 57, who received a sentence of 355 years to life. This stems from his appalling spree of sex crimes against children in the Sacramento region during the 1990s.
Despite that sentence, a three-person panel granted him parole in November under the elderly parole program.
David Allen Funston, who lured, kidnapped and molested at least eight children, was also granted parole in February at age 64.
The case followed another parole decision that ignited outrage in Sacramento County.
The backlash eventually reached the state Capitol, where Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen introduced AB 2727 to tighten the rules governing elderly parole.
Nguyen initially sought to raise the eligibility age to 75, but the proposal was later watered down to 65, with at least 25 years served.
The revised law has yet to pass following pushback from the Prison Policy Initiative, which cited research claiming to show declining recidivism among offenders over 65.
But critics argue the cases that sparked the legislative fight show why age alone should not determine when a violent offender gets another chance at freedom.
“David Funston was released at 64. Do we all feel safer from this pedophile simply by waiting until he’s 65?” said Schubert.
“Age does not erase predatory behavior.”