California Serial Child Molester Granted Parole Amid Victim Outrage
Parole Decision Sparks Public and Victim Backlash
A California inmate convicted of some of the state’s most disturbing child abductions and sexual assaults has been granted parole, igniting outrage among victims and the community. David Allen Funston, 64, was approved for release under California’s elderly parole program after serving more than two decades in prison for a string of kidnappings and assaults on children as young as four years old.
Funston was sentenced in 1999 to 20 years and eight months, along with three consecutive terms of 25 years to life, after being found guilty on 16 counts of kidnapping and child molestation. His crimes shocked Northern California in the mid-1990s, leaving a trail of traumatized families and a community grappling with fear.
At the time of the crimes, Funston prowled Sacramento suburbs, preying on unsuspecting children whom he lured with candy, small toys, and a Barbie doll. Police and prosecutors described him as a serial predator who calculatedly targeted the innocent and vulnerable.
The state parole board’s latest decision follows a September 2025 hearing at which Funston was deemed suitable for release. The full board upheld that determination this week, despite vehement opposition from survivors, their families, and prosecutors involved in the original case.
Chilling Crimes That Terrorized the Sacramento Region
Between 1995 and 1996, a string of abductions unsettled families across Foothill Farms, Highland Hills, and other Sacramento suburbs. Investigators struggled for months to connect the assaults, as witnesses described a man offering rides and gifts to children who vanished briefly only to return traumatized.
Among the most horrifying incidents:
- In Foothill Farms, Funston kidnapped a four-year-old girl, bathed and assaulted her, and threatened her life if she told anyone.
- In Highland Hills, he abducted a five-year-old, physically assaulted and raped her, leaving the child barefoot along Highway 50 with life-threatening injuries.
- He lured a five-year-old boy into bushes where he committed sexual acts.
- He attempted to kidnap two sisters, ages four and five, offering them candy before releasing them.
Investigators at the time described the assaults as unusually sadistic and methodical. A Sacramento judge later called Funston “the monster parents fear the most,” a phrase that came to represent the public terror surrounding his case.
Funston’s conviction relied heavily on DNA evidence — a relatively new tool in criminal prosecution during the late 1990s. Then-prosecutor Anne Marie Schubert, who later became Sacramento County’s district attorney, called the case “the worst child sexual predator” prosecution of her career.
Legal Context: Elderly Parole and Public Safety Debate
Funston’s release comes through California’s elderly parole program, which allows inmates who are at least 50 years old and have served at least 20 years of their sentences to be considered for release, regardless of sentence length. Established to address overcrowding and evolving age-related health considerations, the law aims to balance compassion and safety while reducing incarceration costs.
However, cases involving violent and sexual offenders have repeatedly highlighted the limits and controversies of such policies. Critics argue that age alone does not mitigate risk in sexual predation cases, as underlying psychological factors often remain unchanged with time.
Under current law, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) must refer qualifying inmates to the Board of Parole Hearings, which conducts detailed risk assessments. A grant of parole indicates the board has found that the inmate no longer poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society.
That finding — particularly in Funston’s case — has been met with alarm. Survivors and advocates question whether a bureaucratic process can truly evaluate the persistent threat of a serial child predator.
Outrage From Victims and Advocates
For the women who once lived through Funston’s terror, the parole decision reopens old wounds. Survivor Caroline Sekar, who was abducted as a child, expressed fury and disbelief upon learning of his approval for release. “He shouldn’t be breathing the same air that we’re breathing at all,” she said, describing ongoing trauma that still affects her decades later.
Another survivor, Kate Vitt, one of the two sisters Funston tried to kidnap, called the parole ruling “a huge disservice to all Californians.” Vitt said she sees Funston’s sexual attraction to children as an incurable condition and fears that his release could endanger other children.
Liz Clabaugh, another victim, echoed those feelings, noting that her adult life has been marked by fear and anxiety — emotions reignited by the news of his impending freedom.
Schubert, who prosecuted Funston, has urged state authorities to ensure he is screened as a “sexually violent predator” before any release. In a letter to officials, she emphasized the brutality of his crimes, his use of threats and violence, and his enduring fixation on prepubescent children.
Public Reaction and Regional Comparisons
Public reaction in the Sacramento area has been swift. Victims’ rights advocates and community organizations have called for a review of California’s parole laws governing violent offenders. Local social media groups and parent advocacy networks shared the parole announcement widely, with many residents voicing distrust in the system’s ability to keep communities safe.
The controversy recalls similar parole debates across California. In 2023, another high-profile child sex offender’s release in the Central Valley triggered public protests and forced the state to relocate the parolee multiple times due to safety concerns. In Los Angeles County, parole decisions for violent offenders have also prompted legislative calls to reconsider criteria for release.
Nationally, states vary widely in their treatment of elderly or “geriatric” prisoners. Texas, for example, restricts parole eligibility for violent sex crimes regardless of age, while Oregon and New York allow parole review but often impose housing and monitoring restrictions upon release. California’s approach remains among the most expansive — a reflection of its broader criminal justice reform initiatives aimed at reducing mass incarceration.
Supporters of such reforms maintain that aging inmates typically pose reduced physical risk and that years of incarceration often provide opportunities for rehabilitation. But for victims of sexual violence, the release of their attackers can feel like a profound betrayal, undermining confidence in the justice system.
Economic and Policy Considerations
California’s elderly parole program stems partly from economic pressures. The state’s prison system, among the largest in the country, faces mounting costs related to elderly healthcare, which can exceed triple the expenses of younger inmates. The average annual cost of incarcerating an inmate over 60 is estimated to surpass $150,000, largely due to chronic medical care.
Proponents argue early release for qualifying inmates saves millions in public funds annually while focusing prison resources on higher-risk offenders. Yet cases like Funston’s highlight the ethical challenges of balancing fiscal efficiency with community safety. Critics say no cost savings can justify the potential risk posed by releasing a convicted child predator who once terrorized the state capital region.
Victims and advocates continue to demand greater transparency in parole decisions, including community notification and expanded victim participation in hearings. Some legal experts suggest that recent public pressure could prompt lawmakers to amend parole criteria for sexual offenses — adding stricter review standards or lifetime treatment mandates.
Broader Debate Over Rehabilitation and Justice
Funston’s parole underscores the tension at the heart of California’s justice system: the balance between rehabilitation and retribution. Over recent decades, the state has shifted from a “tough-on-crime” stance toward policies emphasizing reform, decarceration, and reintegration.
Rehabilitation specialists assert that parole boards assess numerous factors, including age, health, remorse, and behavioral change, before granting release. Nonetheless, public skepticism remains high when such leniency extends to crimes involving sexual violence against children — a category many consider unforgivable.
Experts note that successful reintegration of high-risk parolees requires strict supervision, including GPS monitoring, mandatory therapy, and residence restrictions. Whether these measures will accompany Funston’s release has not yet been clarified.
Lingering Trauma and Questions of Accountability
For survivors, the decision brings little closure. Many live with the psychological residue of what happened three decades ago — nightmares, distrust, and fear for their own children’s safety. Several have organized online campaigns urging the governor and attorney general to intervene or appeal the board’s ruling.
“None of us will ever be truly safe knowing he’s out there,” one victim said. “This isn’t just about our trauma — it’s about preventing someone else’s.”
As California moves forward with its evolving parole system, the Funston case serves as a flashpoint for ongoing debates about public safety, justice for survivors, and the cost of compassion within the criminal justice framework.
The controversy also revives a haunting question that communities nationwide continue to wrestle with: Can society ever safely reintegrate those who have committed the most predatory acts — or are some crimes beyond redemption?