Memorandum
- From
- Connor Quincy via fox - U.S.
- Date
- Filed
- News·5 min to read
- Re
Illinois Judge Rules Mother Too Dangerous for Release in Son's Murder Case
ReIllinois Judge Rules Mother Too Dangerous for Release in Son's Murder Case
A Will County judge denied pretrial release for Corie Walsh, charged with murdering her 2-year-old son, finding her a danger to her husband and surviving children. Forensic psychiatrists caution that 'dangerousness' is a forward-looking assessment that can change with treatment.
An Illinois judge has ruled that Corie Walsh, a 40-year-old mother from Frankfort, is too dangerous to be released from custody while she awaits trial on charges of murdering her 2-year-old son, Barrett. The decision, issued during a detention hearing in Will County earlier this month, means Walsh will remain held without pretrial release.
Prosecutors argued that Walsh posed a continuing threat not only in connection with Barrett's death but also because she allegedly threatened to kill her husband after her arrest. The judge agreed, finding that the risk she presented was too great to allow her to return home. The judge also ordered that Walsh immediately receive psychiatric medication after her attorneys said she had gone days without treatment, despite a hospital recommendation that she receive around-the-clock psychiatric care.
Walsh faces three counts of first-degree murder in Barrett's death. Prosecutors allege she believed the toddler was the devil and that she 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.
The ruling raises a broader question that extends beyond Walsh's case: what does it actually mean when a judge determines someone is too dangerous to release? Under Illinois law, judges deciding whether a defendant should remain jailed before trial evaluate the person's current risk to others rather than punish past conduct.
Dr. Stephen Dinwiddie, a professor of psychiatry at Northwestern University with four decades of forensic psychiatry experience, said psychiatrists approach dangerousness the same way — as a forward-looking assessment rather than 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 looks backward at what allegedly happened, dangerousness is designed to evaluate the risk a person may pose going forward, 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 proceedings, judges often decide whether someone should receive treatment over their objections because they present a short-term danger to themselves or others. Dinwiddie said the rationale is simple: «If we don't act, something bad is going to happen within a matter of days, if not sooner.»
Dinwiddie said treatment can dramatically change how psychiatrists evaluate 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 can have legal significance because Illinois judges may reconsider detention if circumstances materially change, although any decision to release a defendant before trial remains up to the court. That does not mean Walsh will be released before trial. It means a judge's dangerousness finding is not necessarily permanent. «I think most of us believe that our interventions can prevent tragedies,» Dinwiddie said.
He cautioned that psychosis alone does not make someone 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's case continues to unfold in Will County, where the judge's detention ruling stands for now. The question of whether her condition improves enough to alter the risk assessment will depend on ongoing treatment and future court reviews.
