Source: calmatters.org 9/30/26
People convicted of serious sex offenses must serve at least 25 years in prison and cannot receive parole until age 65 under a new California. Previously, some could earn parole at 50.
Welcome to CalMatters, the only nonprofit newsroom devoted solely to covering issues that affect all Californians. Sign up for WhatMatters to receive the latest news and commentary on the most important issues in the Golden State.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill Wednesday that will raise the age of parole eligibility for sex offenders serving life sentences.
A Sacramento-area legislator brought forward the bill, which raises the age of eligibility from 50 to 65 for people who have already served 25 years in prison, after the Board of Parole Hearings recommend release of two sex offenders from her district who were serving life sentences.
“It takes a more targeted approach and draws a clear line for the most serious sexual offenses, including cases involving multiple victims, while raising the bar for others before they can even be considered for release,” said bill author Stephanie Nguyen, a Democratic Assemblymember from Elk Grove.
Some civil rights and prisoner advocacy groups raised concerns about the proposals, arguing they could weaken parole laws that have proven effective in reducing the state’s incarcerated population.
…
Yet another solution looking for a problem!!!
“It takes a more targeted approach and draws a clear line for the most serious sexual offenses, including cases involving multiple victims, while raising the bar for others before they can even be considered for release,” said bill author Stephanie Nguyen, a Democratic Assemblymember from Elk Grove.
Vogelsang’s parole in particular prompted both the Sacramento County sheriff and district attorney to protest his release. Vogelsang was convicted of molesting at least six children between the ages of 5-11.
“The parole board is letting us down,” Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper said at a March press conference. “They are horrible. I will say that out front. They are horrible. After this case and the Funston case, they need to be gone. Period.”
California needs to restrict dumbass lawmakers, sheriffs and other officials that think like these two rubes, which costs Californians millions of taxpayer dollars for keeping a person in prison when the parole board gives the parolee the green light. Sheriff Jackass Crackhead you are horrible because your job is to enforce the law and not give your opinion when something doesn’t go your way. By the way thanks for calling registrants horrible and admitting that your outrage is rooted in your hatred while your boxers are up your butt crack.
Do the lawmakers know that being on parole does not mean they are free individuals? They must still report to law enforcement. Hence, they are still under custody and monitoring.
Essentially, the lawmakers are admitting that the registrant class cannot be rehabilitated even though they are serving life sentences like other convicts. The lawmakers are not using facts, but fear to drive their policymaking.
Here is an excerpt from the article sharing facts:
Here is the California State Constitutional law that carving out the registrant class from parole is unconstitutional:
Ca Const., Article 1, Section 7(b): A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.
By carving out the registrant class, then other classes are granted privileges not granted on the same terms to all citizens. In this situation, all citizens refers to all convicts serving lifetime terms.
This is similar to the state taking away the ability to deregister via 1203.4, which had the state proving the registry failed the General statute vs Special statute test.
Probabtion and parole aren’t a get of jail free card because one slip up and one can find themselves in prison serving the remainder of their sentence. Probation and parole are forms of custody without behind bars.
They said my CP conviction was a ‘serious’ offense, does that mean that this law would have required I serve 25 years despite the guidelines saying 2.5 years? That’s asinine.