To me it sounds like it boils down to either you release the software or you don't. If you decide to release it into public, I don't think there is much you can realistically do to prevent abuse.

Release/don't release is definitely the choice with the highest impact, but it's not the only thing that can be considered.

Who you release things to, in what form, with what framing - all of these impact how something will be used. You can never eliminate bad actors, but you can encourage responsible use.

If you know to use Linux properly you can tamper with digital evidence and make a mess for a digital forensics investigator. The thing is, despite Linux making it easier than Windows, it doesn't come with a "here's how to erase digital evidence!" manual[0]. It's "left as an exercise to the reader".

Probably same on macOS, but it's (mostly) not open source, so you can't really argue about it being an open source thing that lets you do evil stuff. You could argue about its availability though.

And it boils down to the point you (and others) were making: these are tools, the ethics are in how you use them.

[0] I know there are some forensic distros that come with anti-forensic tools. Still, Linux in general is the environment that allows that kind of thing to work in the first place, going back to the original point of whether it should be open source or not.