By BILL HETHCOCK - THE GAZETTE
A Manitou Springs man who killed and tried to decapitate his 7-year-old daughter four years ago should be allowed off the grounds of the state psychiatric hospital to practice his social skills, doctors said Wednesday in a court hearing.

Robert Walter Dunn, 55, should be permitted to leave the Colorado Mental Health Institute in Pueblo for shopping trips, baseball games, restaurant visits and other outings as long as he is supervised by a staff member, Dunn's doctors said.



Um, only if said doctor is shackled to him 24/7.


Dunn, in slacks and a plaid shirt, hung his head as Newsome recounted the horrific slaying. He shook his head slightly as Newsome recited what Dunn said were his daughter's last words — “Daddy, you're killing me.”


:\'(

If he is being constantly supervised and kept in check, why not?

If he is being constantly supervised and kept in check, why not?


Oh...I don't know.  Maybe because he NEEDS to be constantly supervised and kept in check in the deepest darkest hole of HELL.

If he is being constantly supervised and kept in check, why not?

You're kidding, right?

So, you'd prefer to lock him up forever in the deep dark hole of HELL? I know, what he did was wrong, but still, doesn't keeping him isolated defeat the purpose of psychiatric hospitals, to rehabilitate? Why are people so unforgiving? Or maybe I'm too forgiving, but I just don't see the logic in keeping someone in the deep dark hole of HELL.

So, you'd prefer to lock him up forever in the deep dark hole of HELL?

No!  I'd prefer he be on death row awaiting a good a good frying.

No!  I'd prefer he be on death row awaiting a good a good frying.

If he was adjudged not guilty by reason of insanity, he cannot be executed by the state.  Period. 
If you take a life, you should not be free to live unsupervised ever again, not even for an afternoon.  I'm the liberal and forgiving sort, and I don't say he must be confined to a "black hole of HELL," as Apricot puts it.  The point is, once a person commits homicide out of delusional thinking, it is too risky to take the chance of giving hime the opportunity to do it again, no matter how healthy he seems.
I also believe philosophically in forever segregating those who kill from those who don't.

It is particularly horrifying to hear of a parent murdering his or her own children.  I had the same reaction to Andrea Yates.  I hope she's never out there walking around free again either!

So, you'd prefer to lock him up forever in the deep dark hole of HELL? I know, what he did was wrong, but still, doesn't keeping him isolated defeat the purpose of psychiatric hospitals, to rehabilitate? Why are people so unforgiving? Or maybe I'm too forgiving, but I just don't see the logic in keeping someone in the deep dark hole of HELL.
He MURDERED someone...IF they were to pull this crap with the guy who MURDERED my son I'd have a problem with that. The justice system coddles these bastards....look at Manson...he gets internet and TV...it's Bullsh*t >:(

If he was adjudged not guilty by reason of insanity, he cannot be executed by the state.  Period. 
If you take a life, you should not be free to live unsupervised ever again, not even for an afternoon.  I'm the liberal and forgiving sort, and I don't say he must be confined to a "black hole of HELL," as Apricot puts it.  The point is, once a person commits homicide out of delusional thinking, it is too risky to take the chance of giving hime the opportunity to do it again, no matter how healthy he seems.
I also believe philosophically in forever segregating those who kill from those who don't.

It is particularly horrifying to hear of a parent murdering his or her own children.  I had the same reaction to Andrea Yates.  I hope she's never out there walking around free again either!
YOU said that VERY well....I appreciate that MORE than you could ever know, Max, Thank you ;)

YOU said that VERY well....I appreciate that MORE than you could ever know, Max, Thank you ;)

Thanks.  See, I'm not such a bad guy.  I do believe in rehabilitation, but I believe there needs to be a checkpoint when it comes to homicide. 
If homicide in self-defense, or to save the life of another is different.  There are gray areas the courts have to weigh in such cases, but in general "defense" is another principle.
I don't know if "tough-on-crime" typs understand how hard it is in most places to get a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity ruling.  Your defense has to prove you had no understanding your actions were wrong.  Few people can prove that, even violent people with severe psychiatric disorders. 

There is also the case of John Hinckley.  He attempted to assassinate President Reagan in 1981.  He was adjudged not guilty by reason of insanity.  In recent years he's been vying for his freedom, citing years of good reports from his psychiatrists.  I'm against his release.  I think if you try to assassinate the president, you should be locked up forever.  Everyone knows I despise Ronald Reagan, but that doesn't mean I approve of someone trying to kill him.  Hinckley wasn't even gunning for Reagan for political reasons.  He was doing it to get a date with Jodie Foster.
:D
He and his defense may eventually convince the courts that he was confined to a psychiatric institute pending his recovery, and if he's been declared all better, they have no legal grounds to hold.  He could actually get out on legal grounds.  I just think that  would be morally wrong and a slap in the face to common sense.

If somebody takes a life they should be forever encarcerated. Being Liberal and forgiving is one thing, sure if you are convicted on some drug charge then you should be rehabbed and eventually re-introduced in to society. However if you have taken the life of another individual no matter what circumstances surrounded it then you should be encarcerated. In this case the guy is insane, ok fine, he's insane, so send him to an asylum and get him checked out, but don't let him out, why? What could there be to gain from allowing him out.. Nothing!

If he is insane then we can assume that he has no remorse as he dosent know what he has done, on the same basis if he is insane then what's to say 'the devil' won't inhabit another body?

People may say that's a very black and white view but in these kind of circumstances i think that is view that has to be taken, Murder is by far the oldest and most heinous of all crimes, and should be treated as such.

When someone is found guilty by insanity I think they should be locked up in a place
where they are treated for their insanity, but when the crime is as heinous as this there
isn't any possible way they should be allowed back in society.  There isn't a doctor in
the world that would absolutely guarantee that someone who did something like this
could, or would not do it again.  If they are so certain that they wouldn't maybe they should
just bring them to their own homes, just to see how it works out, they'd sing a different song
then.

He MURDERED someone...IF they were to pull this crap with the guy who MURDERED my son I'd have a problem with that. The justice system coddles these bastards....look at Manson...he gets internet and TV...it's Bullsh*t >:(


He's not mentally stable... If he were, I'd feel differently. I still don't support life in prison, nor do I support the death penalty. The point of psychiatric institutions is rehabilitation, as I have said before, isn't it?

Just wanted to add something

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

Mr. Dunn has a second chance to be rehabilitated. His daughter does not. I think they should have considered the heinousness of the crime instead of his mental capacity. That is what's wrong with the American justice system.
BTW, I do believe in forgiveness. However, when I don't know what the prepetrator is capable of, forgiveness should be reserved for his victims, including the girl's other family. >:(


He's not mentally stable... If he were, I'd feel differently. I still don't support life in prison, nor do I support the death penalty. The point of psychiatric institutions is rehabilitation, as I have said before, isn't it?

"Vengeance is mine", sayeth the Lord.

Just wanted to add something

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

I support life in prison, especially for Angel Lopez...the slime that killed Blaine. Rehab is fine but I believe if you committ a MURDER you must pay the consequences. Took a life, lose your place in society.

I find this whole 'not guilty by insanity' thing pretty disturbing. Someone has stated that if the defendant can 'prove' they had no knowledge of their actions, then they should be treated differently to someone who deliberately kills someone. I can understand the reasons behind the distinction, but wonder where this leaves people who kill whilst under the influence of drugs & alcohol. I've never killed anyone whilst 'under the influence', but have had occasions where I have behaved in a manner completely alien to my normal demeanor, and have had no recollection of it. If I had killed someone during such a period, however, I would expect to be punished the same as if I was sobre. Unusual mental state or not, my body will still have had to make deliberate efforts to  take that persons life, with the same end result.
I recall reading somewhere that in France they have differing laws for 'crimes of passion' to straightforward murders, i.e. if someone is killed in the heat of a marital dispute, they get treated differently.
In the UK there have been instances where women suffering from PMS have received very light sentences for murdering people (usually their husbands), on the basis that they were not responsible for their own actions because of the way their bodily hormones were acting upon them. I think this sets a dangerous precedent, as obviously any menstruating female may be prone to this- does this mean that they are absolved responsibility for crimes for up to a quarter of their adult life? Another reason this 'hormonal inculpability' worries me, is that many people who perform violent/ antisocial acts are driven by their hormones to do so- I can't see many rapists getting off lightly because 'their hormones made them do it' (and rightly so).

I find this whole 'not guilty by insanity' thing pretty disturbing. Someone has stated that if the defendant can 'prove' they had no knowledge of their actions, then they should be treated differently to someone who deliberately kills someone. I can understand the reasons behind the distinction, but wonder where this leaves people who kill whilst under the influence of drugs & alcohol.
They tried this argument at Blaine's killers trial. His killer had been up partying for 3 days, high on meth, and THAT was the excuse they used. They also tried to say it was a random act...but it was proven that it had all been planned. They said they didn't plan to kill anyone and yet they entered the store with a loaded 9mm ::)

If somebody does not know the right or wrong of their actions then how can they be punished to death or be sentenced to life imprisonment... who has the right to decide to take anothers life when the fore mentioned patient wasn't of sound mind?  Wouldn't that make the judge, jury and executioner even more guilty of murder seeing they were of sound mind when deciding to kill another.

Mental illness should be taken account, it is not an excuse I grant you and he should be punished accordingly.  Death is not the answer, rehabiitation is the answer;  he is already living hell on earth  i doubt going to mythical hell will bother him! 

Prevention is better than cure.  If society had taken care of him in the first instance it would never have happened.

If somebody does not know the right or wrong of their actions then how can they be punished to death or be sentenced to life imprisonment... who has the right to decide to take anothers life when the fore mentioned patient wasn't of sound mind?  Wouldn't that make the judge, jury and executioner even more guilty of murder seeing they were of sound mind when deciding to kill another.

Mental illness should be taken account, it is not an excuse I grant you and he should be punished accordingly.  Death is not the answer, rehabiitation is the answer;  he is already living hell on earth  i doubt going to mythical hell will bother him! 

Prevention is better than cure.  If society had taken care of him in the first instance it would never have happened.


Nice!

His killer had been up partying for 3 days, high on meth, and THAT was the excuse they used.

That to me sounds like just another reason to incarcerate the bastard

That to me sounds like just another reason to incarcerate the bastard


Agreed. Meth is bad, and look what it does! I've actually read that a few hundred deaths each year are caused by people on meth trying to stop trains!  :o

Agreed. Meth is bad, and look what it does! I've actually read that a few hundred deaths each year are caused by people on meth trying to stop trains!  :o
My kid WAS a train! BUT he was cooperating fully that night :-\\

Prevention is better than cure.  If society had taken care of him in the first instance it would never have happened.


Unreal. No support for even life in prison?  Even some haven't reached that point of liberal.  I'm not even going to bother responding to any more statements as out there as this.

So what I got from this article is that they're trying to rehabilitate a guy that brutally MURDERED his child because of hallucinations. I also got that they want to someday release him from this hospital and back into the general population. All fine and dandy, but who's to say that he won't relapse or forget to take his meds? What happens then?

I'm sorry, but I don't think that's a good option. He killed a child. I don't care if he was paranoid, seeing things, high, whatever. He KILLED a CHILD. HIS OWN CHILD. That disturbs me to no end. Keep his a$$ locked up and out of sight.

So what I got from this article is that they're trying to rehabilitate a guy that brutally MURDERED his child because of hallucinations. I also got that they want to someday release him from this hospital and back into the general population. All fine and dandy, but who's to say that he won't relapse or forget to take his meds? What happens then?

I'm sorry, but I don't think that's a good option. He killed a child. I don't care if he was paranoid, seeing things, high, whatever. He KILLED a CHILD. HIS OWN CHILD. That disturbs me to no end. Keep his a$$ locked up and out of sight.


Excellent!

So what I got from this article is that they're trying to rehabilitate a guy that brutally MURDERED his child because of hallucinations. I also got that they want to someday release him from this hospital and back into the general population. All fine and dandy, but who's to say that he won't relapse or forget to take his meds? What happens then?

I'm sorry, but I don't think that's a good option. He killed a child. I don't care if he was paranoid, seeing things, high, whatever. He KILLED a CHILD. HIS OWN CHILD. That disturbs me to no end. Keep his a$$ locked up and out of sight.
;)

They tried this argument at Blaine's killers trial. His killer had been up partying for 3 days, high on meth, and THAT was the excuse they used. They also tried to say it was a random act...but it was proven that it had all been planned. They said they didn't plan to kill anyone and yet they entered the store with a loaded 9mm ::)

No, I think if you have ingested mind altering drugs on your own volition, you should be held responsible for ALL actions you take under the influence of the drugs.  Otherwise, you'll have people saying, "It's no REALLY my fault I ran that guy over, I was really drunk at the time!"
::)
Drug-induced psychosis is NOT the same as endogenous psychosis, though the behaviour may mimic the latter.  In the case where a physician irresponsibly prescribed the wrong drug to a patient, AND the patient was taking the drug as directed, there may be a gray area the courts would have to take case by case.

No, I agree.  Prevention is better than cure.  The stressors of poverty and other social injustices DO induce many socially aberrant behaviors.  Social justice goes a long way in preventing criminal pathologies.  Can you prevent all crime by social justice? Absolutely not!  However, you can prevent quite a lot.
Now, if you think you can let corporate greed just run roughshod over human need, and then give inane sermons about "personal responsibility" and "pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstaps," than ineed it is you who is "un-frickin-real."  But...that's my main problem with the dominant right-wing ideology.  It's over there in dreamland with the little cupcakes and gumdrops and sugarplum fairies.

The way I see it. He killed under the influence of a delusion or hallucination. What stops him from suffering from one of these again in the future? Believe me, if he can do it to his daughter, he would find it no trouble to repeat the procedure on a total stranger.

This report makes me angry as well, RockandRollFan. It's just a shame the man was found to be insane.

As someone with two emotional problems-schizoaffective disorder and major depression,I have had experiences with auditory and visual hallucinations,nightmares,and paranoid thoughts-but I NEVER took them out on another person in a harmful or violent way. I got into treatment...I have to wonder why this guy was not committed earlier-before he got a chance to kill? Why didn't friends or family have him taken to a crisis center?

Like I said, prevention is better than cure.

I do not support a life detention for this person in question as he was not of sound mind at the time and therefore cannot be punished for it.  I am not saying throw him back into society I am saying give him help to let him live a relatively normal life.

I am a liberal person and I am not ashamed to not want to kill everyone.  I believe in rehabilitation and support.  I work with mental health sufferers and society only hinders them. 

And if you think my statement was out there you ought to read some British newpapers..... there are lots of us around.

Also, what would be the most suitable punishment if the crime had being commited in the UK, a nation that does not support capital punishment?

Like I said, prevention is better than cure.

I do not support a life detention for this person in question as he was not of sound mind at the time and therefore cannot be punished for it.  I am not saying throw him back into society I am saying give him help to let him live a relatively normal life.

I am a liberal person and I am not ashamed to not want to kill everyone.  I believe in rehabilitation and support.  I work with mental health sufferers and society only hinders them. 

And if you think my statement was out there you ought to read some British newpapers..... there are lots of us around.




Nice!

Also, what would be the most suitable punishment if the crime had being commited in the UK, a nation that does not support capital punishment?


Cheeky Ferret, the only options for a crime of this nature (verdict insanity) is rehabilitation or life sentence (whatever that means these days).

There is a case down here in the West Country of a very old lady who killed her husband and lied about it in front of television cameras, saying it was burglars - she was out of jail after a year's imprisonment. It seems the British judicial system favours the elderly.  ::)

I agree. At least it's better than a painless death by lethal injection.
So what I got from this article is that they're trying to rehabilitate a guy that brutally MURDERED his child because of hallucinations. I also got that they want to someday release him from this hospital and back into the general population. All fine and dandy, but who's to say that he won't relapse or forget to take his meds? What happens then?

I'm sorry, but I don't think that's a good option. He killed a child. I don't care if he was paranoid, seeing things, high, whatever. He KILLED a CHILD. HIS OWN CHILD. That disturbs me to no end. Keep his a$$ locked up and out of sight.