A decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings to grant parole to David Allen Funston, a 64-year-old convicted child molester, has ignited a wave of outrage from his victims, former prosecutors, and the public. Funston, sentenced to multiple life terms for his horrific crimes in the 1990s, was approved for parole under California’s Elderly Parole Program, which has been increasingly criticized as it allows long-term prisoners to seek parole after serving 20 years.
Funston was convicted in 1999 for his role in a disturbing crime spree in Sacramento County that began in 1995. Over the course of several months, Funston abducted and molested at least seven children, including both girls and a boy, with many of the victims being as young as four years old. His crimes, which involved luring children into his vehicle with promises of candy or toys, left a deep scar on the community. Funston’s arrest followed a vigilant neighbor reporting his car’s license plate, leading to his capture.
Despite being sentenced to three consecutive life sentences, Funston’s case was reconsidered for parole under the state’s Elderly Parole Program. The program, established to address prison overcrowding, allows inmates over the age of 50 who have served at least 20 years to be eligible for parole. This decision, made in 2025, has been met with widespread condemnation.
The parole hearing took place after Funston had already been denied parole in 2022. Despite initial resistance, the Board of Parole Hearings approved Funston’s parole eligibility in a decision that was later reaffirmed in February 2026. This decision has sparked an intense public debate about the safety and ethics of releasing inmates convicted of violent crimes, especially those who have shown little remorse for their actions.
Many victims of Funston’s crimes have publicly expressed their dismay over the decision. One of his victims, who was only four years old at the time of the assault, told the Los Angeles Times, “He shouldn’t be breathing the same air that we’re breathing. He is a monster, and he deserves to remain behind bars.” Former Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert, who prosecuted Funston, has strongly opposed the parole decision. She has called for him to be placed into California’s sexually violent predator program, which would commit him to a state hospital after serving his prison sentence.
The program has come under scrutiny for allowing parole for individuals convicted of heinous crimes, despite their long history of violent behavior. Funston’s case highlights the limitations of the Elderly Parole Program, which does not factor in the severity of the crimes committed but instead focuses on an inmate’s age and time served. Advocates for victims and law enforcement officials argue that this approach fails to adequately protect the public from individuals who may still pose a significant threat.
Criticism has also come from local law enforcement officials. Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper publicly criticized the decision, questioning why resources were being allocated to release someone like Funston instead of focusing on protecting vulnerable communities, especially children. “We need to ask ourselves: Why are we protecting someone who has committed such horrific crimes?” he said during a press conference.
As of now, it remains unclear when Funston will be released and whether he will be placed under the sexually violent predator program as requested by prosecutors. Authorities have not disclosed the specific details of his release or the location where he will be sent once he leaves the California Institution for Men in Chino, where he is currently incarcerated.
This case has sparked further debate over the balance between rehabilitation and public safety, with many questioning whether parole for individuals convicted of violent offenses is ever appropriate. The decision raises broader concerns about how the justice system treats those who have committed serious crimes, especially when they are no longer considered physically capable of reoffending.
