California lawmakers are backing away from an earlier push to significantly raise the age threshold for certain inmates seeking parole, following pressure from criminal justice advocacy groups.
At the center of the debate is the state’s elderly parole law, which allows inmates to be considered for release once they turn 50 and have served at least 20 years in prison. The policy was originally intended to ease overcrowding, but it has come under renewed scrutiny after several high-profile cases.
One of those cases involved David Allen Funston, a Sacramento County man convicted of molesting multiple children. He was granted parole earlier this year at age 64, prompting strong reactions from victims and their families, as well as calls from some lawmakers to tighten the rules.
In response, Democratic Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen introduced a bill aimed at raising the minimum age for parole eligibility to 75. At the time, the proposal was framed as a way to close what critics saw as a gap in the law that allowed serious offenders to be released too early.
But as the bill moved through the legislative process, the proposed age limit was scaled back. The latest version sets the threshold at 65, along with a requirement that inmates serve at least 25 years before becoming eligible.
Gavin Newsom’s parole law that granted release of high-profile sex offender torched by own party California Democrats have made a push to change the state’s elderly parole law after several controversial decisions by the state’s Board of Parole Hearings. https://t.co/0ZGKSoy4T7 pic.twitter.com/NdteaPhEFP
— UnfilteredAmerica (@NahBabyNahNah) April 8, 2026
Nguyen’s office said the revision was made in coordination with the Assembly Public Safety Committee to improve the bill’s chances of advancing. A spokesperson described the updated version as a “balanced approach,” noting that it also includes additional safeguards, such as requiring further review for individuals serving life sentences.
Under the revised proposal, certain inmates could be referred to the Department of State Hospitals for evaluation as sexually violent predators, a designation that could prevent their release.
Supporters of the change point to research suggesting that recidivism rates decline with age. Advocacy groups, including the Prison Policy Initiative, argued that raising the threshold too high would increase incarceration costs without significantly improving public safety. They have cited data indicating that reoffending drops sharply after age 50 and becomes rare by age 65.
The adjusted age limit aligns with similar proposals introduced in other legislation, including some backed by Republican lawmakers.
Still, the change has drawn criticism from prosecutors and others who believe the revised threshold does not go far enough. Former Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Schubert questioned whether raising the eligibility age by just one year beyond Funston’s case would meaningfully address public safety concerns. She also raised objections to other revisions that removed broader restrictions on certain sexual offenses.
The debate highlights a broader divide over how to balance public safety, sentencing policy, and prison costs. While some argue that age should be a key factor in determining parole eligibility, others maintain that the severity of the crime should remain the primary consideration.
