text: No, the OP said being homeless and addicted are not crimes. 
  
  She was not a drug user at the time of the incident.  She started using after the assault, and she stopped in the weeks before the hearing.  That was corroborated by evidence at trial.  
  
  The ends doesn't justify the means.  The fact that she was able to testify after she was rested and fed doesn't mean she needed to be jailed to be rested and fed.  She could have gone to her mother's house or a hotel under police supervision, as she volunteered to do, with the same result.  That would have been a reasonable solution.
  
  No reasonable person wants a dangerous offender on the street.  My objection to her treatment is that she was jailed for 5 days illegally.  They didn't even bother to serve her with a subpoena.  She was voluntarily cooperating with police and had attended the trial, ie, had not defied any court order and there was no evidence that she was at risk of flight.  It seems she was jailed just for being homeless.