In the quiet halls of the certain parole hearings across the country, a dangerous experiment is unfolding. It is an experiment that is rooted in the proven research that most people â even violent offenders â age out of crime. But as recent, chilling cases across the country prove, age is not a cure for evil. For example, Californias elderly parole law has become a threat to public safety and will set the smart on crime justice movement back.
I have worked on major criminal justice and public safety reforms across the country. I worked extensively on the “First Step Act,” and was in the Oval Office with President when it was signed. I spent my first career as a criminal trial lawyer, representing many people accused of violent and gang crimes.
I also spent time in prison for causing a nonfatal drunken-driving accident, and have been on parole myself. As someone who has devoted much of my advocacy life to second-chance hiring, reentry and making the streets safer through smart on crime policy, is the wrong answer.
California has become the rooted in science, but wrongly applied. Under California Penal Code section 3055, nearly any inmate who is 50 years of age or older and has served at least 20 continuous years is eligible for an elderly parole hearing. The problem with this law is that it includes individuals who raped and kidnapped children. These laws are framed â and often applied â as compassionate release for the infirm, but they are morphing into a parachute for serial child predators which must be stopped.
When people are released primarily because of age, without regard for their crimes or the reality of rehabilitation and reentry, we invite disaster. Unsurprisingly, people who manipulated and harmed children have seized on an opportunity to manipulate parole boards and courts.
In fact, some of these people have been sentenced to life imprisonment with dozens of kidnapping, child rape and molestation convictions involving victims as young as 3 years old. They used candy, costume jewelry and Barbie dolls to lure children into their cars before subjecting them to horrific violence. Â Â
There is a real difference between a person â with any offense â who is physically or medically infirm, or requires nursing home care, and someone who is deemed elderly at 50. By making age the primary decision factor for heinous offenses against children â which do not decrease at the same rate as other offenses â our .
Proponents of elderly parole point to statistics showing that recidivism rates for paroled seniors are as low as 1.8%. However, these figures are dangerously misleading when applied to sex offenders. A longitudinal study following sex offenders for 25 years found that 34% committed at least one sexual re-offense after release. For high-risk predators, the “desistance” period is often a mirage. California issued a 2026 report that shows that general crime drops with age, but people in the over 60 years of age had a 9.5% recidivism rate three years after release.
Certain crimes undoubtedly decrease with age â including murder, drug and alcohol offenses, assaults and even organized gang activity. Child kidnapping, rape and similar offenses that are motivated by deep psychological compulsion do not decrease at the same rate.
Elderly parole â with certain commonsense conditions and exclusions â makes sense. For example,  to raise the eligibility age to 75 and require 30 years served for violent sexual offenders, while permanently excluding those convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child.
As people with sexual offenses against children , advocates and policymakers should come together to enact smart, commonsense reform. This is a far cry from a former gang member who commits a crime at 25, or an immature person who robs a store.
Elderly parole, applied properly, recognizes the relationship between age and most crime. It also must sufficiently gu
