...there would of course be some serial killers and repeat sex offenders inevitably set free in this process. Wemight not have a psycho-medical cure for such behaviors, and even if we did, they'd still need to be willing to be treated, and held somewhere for such treatments.

...and is the state responsible for any crimes done of they are simply released? How does the state hold its self to account for a child getting molested that wouldn't have otherwise been, for instance?

How does the state hold its self to account for a child getting molested that wouldn’t have otherwise been, for instance?

How do states do that now? Current states not only let (some, "high ranking") rapists and murderers go free but put them in positions of power. Anarchy doesnt offer an absolute solution to murder and rape, or crime in general and, despite their claims, neither do states.

This is an anarchist comm so there wouldnt be any state anyways.

Lastly, rule 1.

…there would of course be some serial killers and repeat sex offenders inevitably set free in this process.

Yes, but fewer than are currently protected by the system. Also, the same was undoubtedly true for Auschwitz and other historical concentration camps. Should the allies have waited to make sure none of the people there were guilty of something dangerous?

…and is the state responsible for any crimes done of they are simply released? How does the state hold its self to account for a child getting molested that wouldn’t have otherwise been, for instance?

What state?

But yes, the people who liberated people from concentration camps will have to live with the fact those liberated people go on to live their own lives for good or ill. The horror.

We might not have a psycho-medical cure for such behaviors, and even if we did, they’d still need to be willing to be treated, and held somewhere for such treatments.

It's okay to do preventative violence if it's reasonable that every part of it is actually preventative, and if it's clear those doing the violence have consideration for those they're doing violence on. For example, the meme doesn't say to destroy alzheimer care facilities. Good alzheimer care facilities go out of their way to find the least violent way to contain patients. Like a fake bus stop where the bus never arrives so patients wait for the bus until they forget they were trying to leave.

This fake bus stop is deliberate deception of another person. Gaslighting. Psychological violence. But it's the least violent way that facility knows to prevent patients from leaving and getting in harm's way. As long as that is true, and as long as society puts reasonable effort into curing Alzheimers and finding less violent means, then it is okay that the care facility is doing violence to contain people.

Theoretically you can imagine someone who has the exact psychological profile living in a society that has the exact material conditions that a prison cell is the best available option for them. Maybe this would even happen. But this would be a bespoke solution arrived at by talking it through with them, considering all of their needs and risk factors and all less invasive means of mitigating them. And it would never make any sense to put them in the same room as similarly dangerous people, nor would it make sense to make the cell anything less than luxurious. Personally I can't imagine a scenario where anything more than house arrest would be justifiable.