I don't much care for what I see as jamesd's preferred system for dealing with offenders. He probably wouldn't like mine, either.
A State establishes a universal system for coping with offenders. Perhaps it sets up one that jamesd likes, in which case I am obliged to be party to practices of which I disapprove; perhaps it sets up one more tolerable to me, in which case jamesd is made complicit in practices he objects to; perhaps it chooses some third program that offends jamesd and me equally (if for unlike reasons).
In an anarchy, if you burgle jamesd's home or otherwise trespass upon his personal sovereignty, he will do to you whatever it is he does in reaction to that, and I will not interfere, because that would be, in my view, a worse transgression against his sovereignty than merely messing with his physical property or being. If it's my home you burgle, I expect neighbor jamesd not to interfere in whatever it is I do about that.
And neither of us is coerced into forking out time or money (e.g. taxes) to support an approach to criminal trespass that we don't respect. At worst, we're obliged to put up with someone else somewhere doing something we don't like, but not to us -- and it's not like that never happens.