The OP said she had never broken the law. I was correcting him. She was a regular drug user at the time of the incident and until a few weeks before her testimony. Crack cocaine. 

I don't understand why you weight the trial judges hindsight more than the judge who had her in his courtroom. In any event, it doesn't support your position. The trial judge says her testimony is only reliable AFTER she was able to straighten out. This supports the decision to keep her in a safe place for a period long enough for her to resolve some of her issues. In fact, he says that her earlier testimony was unreliable and not indicative of her normal state. That was AFTER a night at a hotel. They clearly needed to take further action to help this woman.

What I don't understand is why you want a dangerous offender free on the street. That could be the only reason you would argue against what turned out to be a successful result in a very difficult situation.