Consider this, in the context of the oft quoted Ben Franklin, that, and paraphrasing: "those who would would trade freedom for safety deserve neither."
Let’s suppose it’s true that the purpose of the legal standard of "reasonable doubt" in criminal matters is to protect the innocent. In other words, even if you think he’s probably guilty, if you have doubt/s that are reasonable, i.e., plausible, logical, then you acquit. Period. In this way, it’s far more likely that you’ll let the guilty go (to kill, rape, murder, steal again?) than it will be to convict an innocent. Of course, this all presumes competence on the part of the judge (courtroom referee), honesty and integrity on the part of the prosecution and its witnesses, and intelligence on the part of the jury, which, as we know from The Innocence Project and many other sources, is a shaky assumption at best. (Side note: I’m very often told that the essential justification and necessity for the state is to ensure and guarantee "objective justice." Did you check that link?)
But we’re talking principles and ideas, so let’s proceed. So, do you notice anything in that that’s apropos to the freedom/safety trade off? You should. It has rightly been deemed and put into quotedian legal practice that the freedom of the innocent is so precious and important, that we’ll trade away some safety by letting some number of murderers, rapists, child molesters, kidnappers, robbers and thugs go free.
Anarchy is merely the expansion of that sound and rational principle to it’s logical and just moral conclusion.