A chilling wave of outrage swept through Sacramento County this week as news surfaced: David Allen Funston, a convicted serial child molester once branded “the monster parents fear most,” has been granted parole. The decision, made under California’s controversial Elderly Parole Program, ignited the fury of Sheriff Jim Cooper and reopened wounds from a case that haunted the region in the 1990s.
Funston, now 64, was sentenced in 1999 to three consecutive life terms – effectively ensuring he would remain behind bars indefinitely – after a horrific spree of kidnapping and abusing young children. A judge, at the time of sentencing, unequivocally declared him a continuing threat to society, a predator who deserved to be permanently removed from the possibility of harming others.
But California’s law, designed to consider the release of inmates over 50 who have served at least 20 years, deemed Funston “suitable for parole.” This sparked immediate condemnation, raising profound questions about justice and the safety of vulnerable children. The program’s criteria, focusing on age and time served, appeared to overshadow the unspeakable nature of his crimes.
Sheriff Cooper, visibly shaken, recounted a phone call from a retired sergeant who had been instrumental in Funston’s original investigation. The sergeant’s anger was palpable, fueled by the realization that the man who inflicted such profound trauma was being considered for freedom. Cooper immediately launched a review, unearthing thousands of pages of harrowing evidence.
The details are agonizing. Funston preyed on children as young as three years old, luring them with promises of candy and toys before subjecting them to unspeakable abuse. One particularly disturbing case involved the kidnapping of a young girl in North Highland, a vicious assault, and her abandonment in Placerville after being brutally beaten. The resilience of the young victims, their ability to identify their attacker, was a testament to their strength.
Cooper emphasized the calculated nature of Funston’s crimes, contrasting the innocent lures he used with the horrific acts that followed. He received three 25-to-life sentences, intended to keep him incarcerated for the rest of his days. A 2020 bill, however, altered the landscape, making inmates eligible for parole after 20 years and reaching the age of 50 – a threshold Funston now meets.
“He stole their childhoods,” Cooper stated, his voice heavy with emotion. “The damage he’s done is irreparable.” He sharply criticized the parole board’s decision, arguing that the severity of Funston’s crimes should preclude any possibility of release. He questioned the very foundation of a system that could even contemplate granting freedom to such a predator.
The Sheriff pointed to a disturbing trend: an increasing number of younger offenders committing similar crimes, potentially qualifying for parole under the same law at an even earlier age. He implored for a change, a reevaluation of the program’s criteria, and a renewed commitment to protecting children. This isn’t just about one case, he argued, but about the future safety of California’s most vulnerable citizens.
Funston was convicted on sixteen counts of kidnapping and child molestation. The judge’s chilling description – “the monster parents fear most” – echoes the terror he instilled in the community. Yet, despite this stark warning, the parole board deemed him suitable for release, a decision that has ignited a firestorm of controversy and demands for accountability.
Cooper’s frustration extended beyond this single case, highlighting a broader pattern of lenient sentencing and expungement policies in California. He cited examples of individuals committing horrific acts, including infanticide, and receiving minimal consequences, raising a disturbing question: what message is California sending about the value of innocent life and the protection of its children?
