Outrage as Gavin Newsom’s parole board that freed killer pedos is confirmed — despite chilling admissions

Five members of California’s parole board were reappointed by top Democrats despite a furious backlash over the release of child predators under the state’s controversial elderly parole program.

Commissioners William Muniz, Michael Ruff, Rosalind Sargent-Burns, Mary Thornton and Jack Weiss were approved by the Senate Rules Committee on Wednesday over Republican objections, and now head to a full Senate vote.

The panel — all appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom — faced intense scrutiny from GOP lawmakers over a string of high-profile releases, including convicted child abusers and sex offenders.

That includes the parole of David Allen Funston, 64, who prosecutors said kidnapped and molested at least eight children — seven girls and one boy — after luring them with Barbie dolls and candy.

In March, commissioners also freed Gregory Lee Vogelsang, 57, who had been serving a more than 300-year sentence for sexually abusing children as young as five.

Another case involved Roberto Antonio Detrinidad, 39, who was released despite a life sentence for breaking into a San Francisco apartment and sexually assaulting a sleeping woman.

Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones blasted the decisions, saying they had “badly shaken” confidence in the board.

“Mr. Vogelsang acknowledged that his sexual attraction to children is always going to be there,” Jones said.

“As a board member, can you explain how factors like age, time served, and good behavior can outweigh a public safety risk when an inmate admits ongoing sexual attraction to children?” he asked.

Commissioners declined to discuss specific cases but said they were guided by law and evidence — not emotion.

“We appreciate the incredible emotional toll each of these cases has taken,” Weiss said, adding the board is required to make “an exacting, evidence-based determination.”

Muniz said decisions must follow 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 said.

“To just say because we don’t like the crime, somebody can’t be released, would be arbitrary and capricious.”

Board members said parole decisions rely on risk assessments and psychological evaluations, including whether inmates understand their triggers and how to manage them.

But Jones dismissed the process as out of touch with reality.

“Does the science ever go back and evaluate whether those coping mechanisms actually work, or are they just fancy theories?” he said.

He added the rulings defy common sense.

“Would I want Vogelsang or Funston living next to my grandchildren? … the answer is absolutely not,” Jones said.

“They both admitted that they still have ideations.”

Republican Sen. Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh pressed the panel on transparency, asking whether they would support making deliberations public.

“There is integrity in keeping the deliberative process within the board,” Muniz said, arguing it protects against political pressure.

Several commissioners declined to answer, saying they would need to check with counsel first.

Ochoa-Bogh said she was not convinced.

“I was not satisfied with the answers… in terms of accountability,” she said.

Even Democrats acknowledged the public concern.

Senate President Monique Limón said cases involving crimes against children make parole decisions “even more difficult” — and raise serious questions about whether releases are in the public’s best interest.

She pointed to proposed legislation aimed at giving commissioners more discretion and increasing transparency in the process.