An Illinois judge has determined that Corie Walsh, accused of murdering her 2-year-old son, Barrett, is too dangerous to be released from custody before her trial. Walsh, 40, remains held without pretrial release after a Will County judge denied her request to leave jail during a detention hearing.
Prosecutors allege Walsh posed a threat not only due to the circumstances of her son's death but also because she allegedly threatened to kill her husband after her arrest. The judge agreed with the prosecution's assessment, finding Walsh presented too great a danger to the public to be released.
In addition to denying pretrial release, the judge ordered Walsh to receive psychiatric medication immediately. This directive followed her attorneys' statements that she had gone days without treatment despite a hospital's recommendation for around-the-clock psychiatric care.
Walsh faces three counts of first-degree murder. Authorities allege she believed her toddler son was the devil. She is also accused of threatening to harm her husband and their three surviving children.
Forensic psychiatrists emphasize that a determination of dangerousness is not a permanent label but rather a forward-looking assessment of a person's current risk to others. This risk can change, particularly with effective treatment for mental health conditions.
Dr. Stephen Dinwiddie, a professor of psychiatry at Northwestern University, explained that psychiatrists assess dangerousness by considering past actions, statements, and the individual's current mental state to predict future behavior. "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 past conduct, a dangerousness assessment aims to evaluate potential future risk. Dinwiddie described the concept as "squishy," noting the need to define the nature and timeframe of the danger, such as imminent physical harm.
In situations like civil commitment proceedings, judges may order treatment for individuals deemed an immediate danger to themselves or others, based on the understanding that without intervention, a negative outcome could occur quickly. Dinwiddie stated that interventions aimed at treating underlying mental illness symptoms can significantly alter a person's future risk profile.
Illinois law allows judges to reconsider detention orders if circumstances change, though the ultimate decision to release a defendant before trial rests with the court. This means that while a finding of dangerousness can be re-evaluated, it does not guarantee a change in a defendant's custody status.
Dinwiddie also addressed common misconceptions about severe mental illness, stating that psychosis does not automatically equate to dangerousness and that individuals experiencing psychosis can still think logically, albeit within a delusional framework. He stressed that severe mental illness can affect anyone and is not a choice.
Walsh has not yet entered a plea in the case, which is ongoing.