Actually, the prosecution has a job. Most places aren't idiotic enough to imprison victims to make the prosecutor's job easier. This is just another reason to stay below the Mason-Dixon line.
I think it's sad that there are people who would defend this practice.
Sure this sounds bad as presented, but the story was framed in so one-sided a way that it makes me suspicious. "Somebody ain't tellin' all they knows."
I am not saying that I know what happened here, because given this extremely slanted article crammed full of buzzwords and setting out to paint the DA in the worst possible light, we can't know. I am simply pointing out circumstances under which it is possible that the DA was trying to do the right thing. Unhinged victim or intimidated victim who swears out a warrant and then changes her story, dangerous offender who may be released on bail, threats against victim, etc.
I know the default at FR is "jack booted thugs and you're next" but I wouldn't hang a dog on this basis, let alone a DA. And anybody who thinks a DA is "just a job" . . . nope. It doesn't pay well unless you're in a big county with a supplement. I know a few hacks in crooked counties, mostly urban ones < cough cough Nifong cough cough > but most DAs are dedicated to the job and honestly want to do the right thing.