A California assemblywoman who promised to close the loophole that freed a convicted child molester has already watered down her own bill, dropping the proposed parole-age threshold from 75 to 65 after lobbying from a criminal-justice reform group, the New York Post reported.
The retreat means that under AB 2727, offenders convicted of child molestation, rape, and other violent sex crimes could still seek early release at an age barely older than the one that already triggered public outrage, and that the "fix" Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen advertised may amount to little more than a single birthday candle's worth of difference.
The controversy traces back to February, when David Allen Funston, a Sacramento County offender who, the Post reported, lured and molested at least eight children, was granted parole at age 64. Under California's existing elderly-offenders law, inmates can seek parole once they reach 50 and have served at least 20 years in prison. Funston met both thresholds. His release prompted outrage from victims and their families.
Nguyen responded to the backlash by promising to raise the eligibility age to 75, a figure that would have kept offenders like Funston behind bars for another decade. But when the bill went through the Assembly Public Safety Committee, the number came back at 65.
Carol Nguyen, the assemblymember's legislative assistant, told the Post that the change was made to "make sure the bill is workable and can move forward." She framed the revised threshold as a compromise:
"The amended threshold of 65 years old with at least 25 years served reflects a balanced approach, particularly as the bill also strengthens an important safeguard by ensuring individuals serving life sentences are included in the screening process prior to release."
Nguyen's office added that "the intent of the bill has remained the same, to raise the threshold for consideration and strengthen the review process in these cases." A legislative source told the Post that the new age-65 number was chosen to align with research cited by the Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit that had pressured lawmakers on the bill.
The Prison Policy Initiative claims that recidivism rates fall at age 50 and reach zero by age 65. The Post did not identify the underlying study or dataset behind that assertion, and the claim has not been independently verified in the reporting.
Former Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Schubert was not persuaded. She pointed out the obvious arithmetic: Funston walked free at 64. The "strengthened" bill would set the floor at 65.
"David Funston was released at 64. Do we all feel safer from this pedophile simply by waiting until he's 65?"
Schubert also flagged what she described as other changes to the bill that removed blanket prohibitions preventing certain sexual offenses from qualifying for elderly-offender parole. Under the latest version, she said, sex offenders sentenced to life could now become eligible at 65.
"Now under latest version these sex offenders who got LIFE can now be eligible at 65."
"Age does not erase predatory behavior," Schubert added. The former DA's criticism puts a sharp point on the gap between the bill's original promise and its current form. Nguyen told voters she would raise the bar to 75. What emerged from committee was something far more modest, and, critics argue, far more dangerous.
The episode fits a broader pattern in which Democratic officeholders propose tough-sounding responses to public safety failures, only to dilute them under pressure from advocacy organizations that treat incarceration itself as the problem. The Prison Policy Initiative's lobbying succeeded in cutting the proposed age threshold by a full decade before the bill even reached a floor vote.
It is not the first time the party's progressive wing has steered policy in a direction most voters would find difficult to defend. On immigration, a similar dynamic has played out as mainstream Democrats adopted positions once considered fringe, then struggled to explain the consequences to the public.
Under California's existing elderly-offender framework, the 50-year-old, 20-year-served standard already sits well below what most Americans would consider reasonable for violent sex offenders. Nguyen's original proposal to raise the threshold to 75 acknowledged that reality. The retreat to 65, justified by a single nonprofit's recidivism claims, suggests the Assembly Public Safety Committee was more interested in satisfying advocacy groups than in protecting the public.
The bill does include one new safeguard: individuals serving life sentences would be screened by the Department of State Hospitals for evaluation as sexually violent predators, a process that could block their release. But Schubert's criticism makes clear that the screening mechanism is cold comfort when the eligibility threshold itself has been hollowed out.
Progressive Democrats in other arenas have shown a similar willingness to take positions that prioritize ideological commitments over practical consequences. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has openly discussed backing primary challengers against fellow Democrats who resist the party's leftward drift, a pressure campaign that makes it harder for moderates to hold the line on issues like public safety.
Meanwhile, the political dynamics in Sacramento remain tilted in one direction. In Congress, dozens of Democrats have shown a willingness to break with mainstream positions when their activist base demands it, a pattern that California's legislature appears to mirror on criminal justice.
Nguyen's office insists the bill's intent has not changed. But intent is cheap. The number changed. The eligibility pool widened. And the victims of David Allen Funston, the families who watched a man convicted of molesting at least eight children walk free at 64, were told the fix would be 75.
They got 65. One year older than the man who already walked out the door.
When the activist class sets the terms, and elected Democrats keep folding, the people who pay the price are never the ones writing the policy papers.
