An Illinois judge ruled that Corie Walsh was too dangerous to release after prosecutors alleged the Frankfort mother threatened her husband and three surviving children. Walsh is charged with killing her 2-year-old son, Barrett.
But forensic psychiatrists emphasize that “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 directed that Walsh begin receiving psychiatric medication immediately. Her attorneys had said she went several days without treatment, despite a hospital recommendation that she receive continuous psychiatric care.
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 releasing Walsh before trial would pose too great a risk.
The decision raises a question that reaches beyond Walsh’s case: What does it mean when a judge determines that a defendant is too dangerous to release?
Under Illinois law, judges deciding whether someone should remain jailed before trial consider the person’s current risk to others—not simply the conduct alleged in the past.
Dr. Stephen Dinwiddie, a Northwestern University psychiatry professor with four decades of experience in forensic psychiatry, said mental health professionals assess 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 focuses on what allegedly happened, a dangerousness finding is intended to assess the risk a person may present 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 treatment against their wishes because the individual presents an immediate danger to themselves or other people.
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.”
RELATED: Reform UK’s £72m Fund Faces Uncertainty as Watchdog Reviews Spending Rules
Treatment, he said, can significantly alter how psychiatrists assess a person’s potential danger in the future.
“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 the authority to decide whether a defendant should be released before trial.
Such a review would not guarantee Walsh’s release. It means only that a judge’s finding that someone 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.
RELATED: Bettina Trump’s Rise: The Defining Moment She Took the Lead