I guess all the minor stuff, the Preznit in Rome with the Pope, 13 dead in Iraq, killer storms in Australia, all take a back seat to The Big Story of the Day. What a horrorshow.
The Sheriff (who, among other things, is in charge of County Jails as is a Warden in a Prison) decided to let her out after only 10% of her sentence. Perfectly justified, he claims, because of the overcrowding, lots of so called 'low level' criminal are only serving 10%. Not so fast, sez the Judge, who explicitly stated no home release, no electronic monitoring. Do your time. Not so fast, sez the Sheriff. What happens to 'em after you send 'em to us is up to us.
Well, that is true, up to a point. The point is, the Sheriff decides about inmates, yes, early release, yes, all that, but he has to stay within the bounds of the law in general and the mittimus in particular.
And what about health issues? Having a bad hair day is not justification for vacating a sentence. Neither is having cancer, HIV, diabetes, mental health issued. In the prison where I work, we have inmates suffering from one or more of all of these, plus any others you can think of. We treat 'em, we don't send 'em home.
There was some talk that the jail workers (ie, the Sheriff and his deputies) might face some contempt charges, but I doubt if it will come to that. Too dangerous. Prisons and jails are between a rock and a hard space... we got to take what the police and the courts send us. Overcrowding a prison problem? Yes, it is, but hey! We don't breed 'em in there. We don't put 'em there. We just keep 'em there.
So, to charge some of the workers with contempt would only shine a spotlight on some of the ills of the criminal justice system, and who needs that? No, don't look for contempt charges.