Stolenfromreddit wrote

The problem with what OP is arguing is their framing, they incorrectly place the burden of proof of finding a workable solution on abolitionists, which denies the very reason for abolitionism: that the current justice system does not prevent violent crimes and abuse.

“whenever i have discussions on the abolition of cops, people are real real quick to bring up the question of what do you do with people that are--for whatever reason--bent on causing harm. in their eyes these are the people who will revel in the lawlessness of anomie and go on murderous rampages, rape frenzies, and reject all of those anarchist "utopian ideals" about mutual cooperation and community.

“equally, on a personal stage, if someone has committed harm against you, your community, your family, and you were expected to mediate and continue to exist in society with the person that caused that harm (i'm talking significant harms here: murder, rape, child abuse) then that could be a hard pill to swallow.”

This is exactly what I mean about the framing problem. What OP says is fair enough. I agree that we shouldn’t expect rape victims to coexist with their rapists. What OP ignores is that this literally happens all the time in our justice system because our justice system is literally made to protect those in power and oppress those without it. Cops have never been an effective preventative measure against rape, murder and abuse. In fact our justice system protects rapists, murderers and abusers. What abolitionists ask is why do we in our current society not only expect rape victims to coexist with their rapists, but be governed by them. How many rapists are in our senates and parliaments and positions of power. How many of them have ever been arrested investigated and charged for their crimes.

It’s the same argument a catholic might make about Atheism. “Without our religious institutions to enforce our moral teachings, what’s to stop people from running around murdering and raping each other”. They would argue this despite the rampant rape and abuse which was protected by said religious institutions and the murder and genocide which it produced. To me there is no difference between that argument and OP’s.

Edit: just as an example our attorney general in Australia is central to a controversy in which it has recently been brought to light that a woman he raped 30 years ago had committed suicide over the trauma. This is the fucking chief lawyer. If a nations justice system is ruled by rapists, lawyers and abusers as all of those of capitalist nations are then they have no right to exist and should be abolished.