Lawyer Here. I've got Hypos

Before we begin, I've already serarched past content on this sub and I want more nitty-gritty answers. The most common answer I have seen in these posts is that "the community will decide" how to deal with "x" issue that would normally fall under the pretenses of legal adjudication. Since we have a community right here in this sub that adheres to Anarchism, I want to pull a "law school" and present a number of hypotheticals and see how this community would deal with them.

Before I give the hypos, I will state that I'm "anarchy-curious" at this point. I have been anti-corportist my entire life, and have never served in a prosecutorial position as an attorney (fuck that). I personally believe that the primary purpose of law is to preserve human rights--I take a view that law is a "social contract" when it is promulgated, especially in manners that involve direct democracy (i'm a huge fan of state ballot measures, for instance).

I will also state that as an attorney I try to engage in Alternative Dispute Resolution as much as possible, which saves my clients money, and I already utilize tools like Demand Letters, Cease and Desist letters, mediation, mechanic's liens and have even used threats to take the issue to the media. In fact, I write mediation clauses into most of the contracts that I write. I find arbiration, especially binding arbitration to be less fair for "the little guy" and less transparent than the current adjudacatory legal system in the U.S. because arbitration is almost always sealed, even when binding.

All that being said, let's get to the Hypos:

Hypo #1: A man drives drunk and strikes a vehicle carrying a family of four, killing all of them except for the drunk driver, who is unharmed. Without prisons, what happens to him according to this community?

Hypo #2: A woman claims that her personal property, a non-descript gold ring with no markings, was taken by another woman. Both women claim the ring is a family heirloom.

Hypo #3: Divorce. A couple files for divorce over incompatability. They have two children. Who gets to decide custody? Currently law uses the framework of "the best interest of the child." How would an anarchist community decide what that is, and who would be qualitifed to make such a decision?

Hypo #4: An employee-owned business that spreads fertilyzer is hired by a small subsistence farmer to fertilize his fields. After the fields are fertilized, no crops grow. The farmer blames the EOB for using the incorrect chemicals. The EOB says that the crops did not grow because of a farmer's negilgence. If through alternative dispute resolution it is determined that the EOB is at fault, how are they held liable in an anarchist system?

Hypo #5: A group of white men in a small rural town nearby begins forcing local minorites into indentured servitude.

Hypo #6: A doctor performs a surgery and leaves a latex glove inside a patient. Several surgeries are required to remove it. The patient now lives with constant pain and suffering.

Hypo #7: The same EOB that spreads fertilzyer is found to have used fertilzyer all over the community, and this specific type of fertilyzer has been determined to be carcenogenic once it leeches into the water supply. The EOB continues to use the fertilyzer anyway because it is cheaper than the alternatives and these employees generally (and wrongly) believe that their product is not causing harm.

Hypo #8: A man owns a tiger farm. Several tigers escape and eat a few locals. The man wasn't home when the tigers escaped, and they only escaped because of a power failure. What do we tell the families of the tiger meals?

If this post is more suited for r/DebateAnarchism, I'll repost it there, but I'm less interested in arguing with you than I am exploring ideas on how various conflict resolution is found in anarchist soceity. What I have read about dispute resolution in the various posts on this sub would make it seem that much of the apporach for dispute resolution frankly resembles what I know of dispute resolution in tribal societies, which I think is great for small communities. But how can that be applied in a modern sense when billions of people live on this planet? Even a "small state" in the US has millions of people that interact with people they've never met on a daily basis.

I view adjudicative processes differently than "the State" as well, despite binding adjudication having force behind it of some kind. Judical independence is supposed to be a cornerstone of law, but humans fuck their own ideas up all the time. I'm also curious if this sub thinks juries fall into the category of "decisions being made by the local community" because most juries are pulled from the jurisdiction where a crime is committed. Adjudication and conviction are different than sentencing, and you could have both of these things with the abolishment of prisons.

As far as the abolishment of prisons go, I'm curious what people think will happen to criminals if they are not reformed in some way. Exile is not really an option on a planet of 8 billion--bad people will move and hurt innocents in new areas (we've seen bad cops do this many times after they escape punishment due to Qualified Immunity). Even more reformative criminal justice systems take care to lock away the most dangerous members of soceity (thinking of someplace like Norway, who normally has a 21 year maximum sentence, and who also is likely going to have to test the limits of this with cases like the mass killer Brevnik who killed 90 or so youths at that summer camp). What do you do with a serial killer in anarchist soceity?

Is putting a criminal to death preferable over imprisoning them, especially with what we know about wrongful convictions in death penalty cases?

Feel free to address as much of this as you like. I'm here to garner perspective.