on the subject of crime, is the fact that a crime committed against an individual is punished by the state for the 'good of society'. The victim of that crime is most often victimized, yet again, by the very people who are charged with protecting them.
How would anarchy better deal with individuals who couldn't/wouldn't govern themselves?
This is the right question, not the one about unidentified bodies in a dumpster, which, as I pointed out, are more likely to show up where there is public property.
The answer to this is two-fold. First to understand how much government contributes to the existence of individuals couldn't/wouldn't govern themselves. Secondly to understand the mechanisms which the natural order uses to impose self-governance.
WRT the first. Not only is government the single greatest criminal which exists, stealing and murdering far more people than any smaller gang, it also is the ultimate source of most private crime as well. The vast majority of crime comes directly from the government welfare system attacking fatherhood and the family, the government's war on drugs and the crime schools called prisons.
As to the question of how the natural order keeps people in line, the prime mechanism is through ostracism. Why do you pay your debts? Not (primarily) because of the threat of court action but rather because people will cease to deal with you if you welch. If you're behind on your credit cards, eventually you pay up. And life goes on. No expensive lawyers and prisons. Etc. Simply quiet resolution of the problem.
The same mechanism can be used for other things as well. Ostracism is a powerful way to keep people in line. It works. And the ultimate form of ostracism, for those who simply refuse to follow the rules of good behaviour, is banishment.
In the modern world, any one who is banished better hope he can find some other community to take him in. Otherwise, he is going to be awfully hungry.
Easy, if they get out of hand, they would be "sleeping with the fish."