The prosecutor is between a rock and a hard place. Try to help someone who is really not in her right mind (the way these silly women moan, "Oh, but I luvvvvv him!" while they are black and blue with broken bones, makes you want to slap them silly until you realize that they really are not sane) and the cop-haters launch on you. Let them refuse to press charges, the violence escalates until they die, and then the law-and-orders launch on you for failing to protect the victim.
It is absolutely possible for a judge to hold a witness in contempt for refusing to testify, whereupon they wind up . . . in jail. This appears to be the same destination for the same reason, but by a statutory route.
If there's a problem with the law, the legislature needs to address it. But I don't think we're getting the whole story here.
My wife was a Court Reporter for years, and she has filled me in on the "But I Luv Heem!" statements. I am not insensitive to that. I would not approve of jailing a vic just so later I don't have people complaining I didn't protect her, as this DA specifically says in the story. (It's a quote, so it's not leavened with the bias you detect.) How selfish can a government drone be?
As I said, if "zero tolerance" is the game, then we need to jail everybody alive to keep them from becoming crime victims. It's the only way to shut the critics up. It's the same thing, the only difference being the level of degree.
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.