When it comes to crime, criminals, and the penal systems, there are some criminals, some monsters who should never again breathe free air. But there seems to be a question as to what to do with elderly prisoners; the prison system isn't really set up to provide nursing care. There's an argument to be made for the compassionate release of certain classes of criminals (non-violent) who are elderly — actually elderly — and in poor health.
On the other hand, some monsters should never again breathe free air.
Twenty-four states, along with the District of Columbia, have some sort of an elderly parole system. Ages and conditions vary, but let's start with one of the most lenient setups: California. In the once-Golden State, a criminal who is over 50 and who has served 20-25 years of his or her sentence may be eligible for elderly parole. That's right: 50. Most people are still strong and capable at 50. Fifty is by no means "elderly." Fifty is smack-dab in the middle of middle age.
The Pacific Research Institute's Steve Smith has some details.
California’s “elderly parole” system, created under AB 3234 and related statutory reforms, allows incarcerated people to be considered for release once they reach age 50 and have served at least 20 years. It is routinely described as a compassionate mechanism for aging inmates and prison population management. But the label “elderly parole” is misleading. Fifty is not elderly in any ordinary sense. It is middle age—an age at which many offenders remain physically capable and, in the case of sexual offenders, still within a range where risk cannot be assumed to have diminished.
That distinction matters because California is now confronting the consequences of applying this framework to the most serious category of violent crime.
One of those consequences lies in the case of one David Allen Funston, a convicted child abuser, who was set for release under this program until a way was found to keep him behind bars. See our earlier reporting on his case:
Read More: Serial Child Predator's Parole Now Thwarted by Cold Case Warrant
Blue State Justice: 'Monster' CA Child Predator to Be Released Because He's Not a Threat at Age 64
In short, Funston is 64 and is serving multiple life sentences.
Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper, other officials and victims blasted California parole officials Monday after the Board of Parole Hearings reaffirmed a decision finding David Allen Funston, a serial child rapist serving multiple life terms for a 1995 Sacramento-region crime spree, suitable for elderly parole.
Funston, now 64, was convicted of kidnapping and sexually assaulting multiple children in North Highlands, Foothill Farms, Roseville and elsewhere. A Sacramento County jury sentenced him in 1999 to three consecutive life terms plus additional time that, at the time, was intended to ensure he would never receive a parole hearing.
I happen to be 64 myself. I'm fit and strong, and do not consider myself to be in any way incapacitated by age. Annoyed by age, perhaps, but not incapacitated. But there's more to the matter than just physical health: There's a matter of principle involved. When a prisoner, a man like Funston, convicted of repeated acts of violence against children, is sentenced to multiple consecutive life prison terms, there's simply no sane argument for his ever breathing free air again.
California is far from the only state to have a program like this; in fact, almost half of the states have some form of compassionate elderly parole. In most cases, they are contingent on some kind of health issue, presumably requiring full-time nursing home care, hospice care, or palliative care. (Palliative care means, basically, keeping someone as comfortable as possible while they are dying.) Ages vary; here in Alaska, it's 60, in Alabama, New Mexico, and North Carolina, it's 55. California is the lowest at 50. The highest ages include Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Tennessee, and Utah at 65 or higher, again, usually contingent on health issues.
You can check out the laws in your own state here.
Back to the PRI and Steve Smith's evaluation; Mr. Smith writes:
California must ask whether elderly parole, as currently structured, is appropriately calibrated to the category of offender it is now being applied to. It was designed as a population management tool. It is increasingly functioning as a release mechanism for individuals whose crimes were once understood as permanently disqualifying from society.
AB 2727 attempts to correct that drift by raising the age threshold, extending time served requirements, and mandating SVP screening before release eligibility is even considered. In effect, it reintroduces a higher burden of proof before society accepts the risk of release in cases involving extreme sexual violence.
That is a necessary recalibration.
If it passes. This is California, with a Democrat supermajority in the Assembly, so who knows?
There is a place for parole programs like this. That's why almost half of our states have them. There's a good argument to be made, especially for non-violent criminals, and those who are incapacitated by age or disease. We aren't savages; there's no reason to maintain in prison an old, old man, perhaps suffering from a debilitating medical condition, one who has been rendered no threat by age and/or disease. But David Allen Funston meets none of those categories, and the very notion of releasing him due to his age, arguably late middle age, is repugnant — especially given the nature of his crimes.
Like so many things, blue states and Democrat-dominated legislatures take a reasonable idea and extend it beyond any notion of good sense. That's what has happened in California. That's what almost happened in the case of David Allen Funston. That's a system in desperate need of reform.
