An Illinois judge ruled that Corie Walsh was too dangerous to release after prosecutors alleged the Frankfort mother remained a threat to her husband and three surviving children. Walsh is charged with murdering her 2-year-old son, Barrett.
Forensic psychiatrists, however, say dangerousness is not a permanent designation. It is a forward-looking assessment that may change when a person’s mental health improves with treatment.
Walsh, 40, remains in custody without pretrial release after a Will County judge rejected her request to leave jail during a detention hearing earlier this month.
The judge also ordered Walsh to begin psychiatric medication immediately. Her attorneys had told the court that she went several days without treatment, despite a hospital recommendation that she receive psychiatric care around the clock.
Prosecutors argued that Walsh should remain jailed not only because of the allegations involving Barrett’s death, but also because she allegedly threatened to kill her husband after her arrest. The judge agreed, concluding that Walsh posed too serious a danger to be released before trial.
The decision raises a broader question beyond Walsh’s case: What does it mean when a judge determines that a defendant is too dangerous to release?
Under Illinois law, judges weighing pretrial detention consider a defendant’s current risk to other people, rather than imposing punishment for past conduct.
Dr. Stephen Dinwiddie, a Northwestern University psychiatry professor who has spent four decades working in forensic psychiatry, said mental health professionals view dangerousness in much the same way—as a prediction about future behavior, not a permanent label.
“Obviously we’re talking more about what we’re afraid they’re going to do tomorrow,” he said. “Part of that prediction is based on what they did yesterday … what they did in the past … and what they have said they intend to do.”
Unlike a criminal verdict, which examines what allegedly happened in the past, a dangerousness assessment focuses on the risk a person may pose in the future, Dinwiddie said.
“It’s pretty squishy,” he said. “Dangerous to whom? Imminently or long-term? Dangerous in a physical way or something else?”
In civil commitment cases, judges frequently determine whether a person should receive psychiatric treatment against their wishes because the individual poses a short-term danger to themselves or others.
Dinwiddie said the reasoning is straightforward: “If we don’t act, something bad is going to happen within a matter of days, if not sooner.”
Treatment, he said, can significantly alter how psychiatrists assess a person’s future risk.
“If they’ve behaved in a violent fashion while ill in the past and now they’re ill, obviously that’s important information and obviously that’s something to worry about,” he said. “The intervention obviously is to try to get at that particular symptom of illness and get it under control.”
That possibility can carry legal consequences. Illinois judges may revisit a detention decision when circumstances materially change, although the court retains authority over whether a defendant is released before trial.
That does not mean Walsh will be released before trial. It means the judge’s finding that she is dangerous is not necessarily permanent.
“I think most of us believe that our interventions can prevent tragedies,” Dinwiddie said.
He also warned against assuming that psychosis by itself makes a person dangerous.
“I think one misconception is they’re just different. They’re not like us,” Dinwiddie said. “The tragic fact is they are like us and severe mental illness can affect family members. It can affect anybody.”
Another common misconception, he said, is that people experiencing psychosis cannot think logically.
“Within that delusional system, people can act in a very organized, very logical, very purposeful way,” he said.
He described that concept as “rationality within irrationality,” explaining that someone can carry out a series of organized actions while acting on profoundly delusional beliefs.
Dinwiddie also emphasized that psychosis is not a matter of choice.
“The fact that somebody has evidence of a psychotic process … that is not a matter of choice,” he said. “Nobody would wish that upon themselves.”
Walsh is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in Barrett’s death. Prosecutors allege she believed the toddler was the devil and also threatened to kill her husband and the couple’s three surviving children after her arrest.
Walsh has not entered a plea, and the case remains pending.
