California's Parole Board Reappointed Amid Outrage Over Child Predator Releases

Five members of California’s parole board are back in the game, reappointed by top Democrats even as the public erupts in outrage over their controversial decisions to release child predators under the state’s elderly parole program.

Senate Rules Committee approved commissioners William Muniz, Michael Ruff, Rosalind Sargent-Burns, Mary Thornton, and Jack Weiss on Wednesday, brushing aside fierce Republican objections. Now, they’re headed for a full Senate vote.

This panel, all handpicked by Gov. Gavin Newsom, is under fire from GOP lawmakers for a series of shocking releases, including notorious child abusers and sex offenders. The list includes David Allen Funston, 64, who prosecutors say kidnapped and molested at least eight children—seven girls and one boy—luring them with Barbie dolls and candy.

In a jaw-dropping move, the board also freed Gregory Lee Vogelsang, 57, who had been serving a staggering 300-year sentence for sexually abusing kids as young as five. And let’s not forget Roberto Antonio Detrinidad, 39, who walked free despite a life sentence for breaking into a San Francisco apartment and assaulting a sleeping woman.

Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones didn’t hold back, claiming these decisions have “badly shaken” public confidence in the board. “Mr. Vogelsang acknowledged that his sexual attraction to children is always going to be there,” Jones pointed out. “How can age, time served, and good behavior outweigh a public safety risk when an inmate admits ongoing sexual attraction to children?”

While the commissioners sidestepped specific case discussions, they insisted their decisions are based on law and evidence—not emotion. “We appreciate the incredible emotional toll each of these cases has taken,” Weiss stated, emphasizing the board’s commitment to making “an exacting, evidence-based determination.”

Muniz defended the board’s approach, stating that decisions must adhere to legal standards set by the courts. “It’s not based on emotion… the Supreme Court has said that after a long period of time, the crime may not be indicative of current risk,” he explained. “To just say because we don’t like the crime, somebody can’t be released would be arbitrary and capricious.”

Board members claim their parole decisions hinge on risk assessments and psychological evaluations, including whether inmates grasp their triggers and how to manage them. But Jones dismissed this process as disconnected from reality. “Does the science ever go back and evaluate whether those coping mechanisms actually work, or are they just fancy theories?” he challenged.

He added that these rulings defy common sense. “Would I want Vogelsang or Funston living next to my grandchildren? … the answer is absolutely not,” Jones declared. “They both admitted that they still have ideations.”

Republican Sen. Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh pressed the panel on transparency, questioning whether they would support making deliberations public. Muniz argued that keeping discussions private protects against political pressure. Several commissioners dodged the question, saying they’d need to consult with counsel first.

Ochoa-Bogh expressed her dissatisfaction with their responses regarding accountability. Even some Democrats are feeling the heat; Senate President Monique Limón acknowledged that cases involving crimes against children complicate parole decisions and raise serious questions about public safety. She pointed to proposed legislation aimed at giving commissioners more discretion and increasing transparency in the process.