michael adams wrote
bert wrote

Read what's there not what you want to be there.
If you commit a crime you become a "criminal" by definition.

Except in the absence of written law which everyone can access in theory
at least,

Which hasn’t been the case for centurys now.

different people can have different ideas of what they regard as "a
crime".

Even when written law exists, it's the purpose of the
Criminal Justice System to first decide whether a
particular act could in fact be interpreted as a crime.

Don’t need a criminal justice system to do that with most crime.

And secondly and most importantly provide a
mechanism - the rules of evidence etc which allow it
to be established beyond reasonable doubt, either
by a magistrate or jurors selected at random whether
the accused not actually committed the crime.

And erring on the beyond reasonable doubt side.

Or possibly in some cases whether he or she can be held criminally
responsible for an act which in all other
circumstances would indeed be regarded as a crime.

In most cases in fact.

Anything short of this is simply mob law which can
result in innocent people being torched out if their
homes, or in extremis even hanging from lamposts.

Irrelevant to whether someone who did the crime
is a criminal or not.

As an individual charged with a crime you are presumed innocent until a
jury decides otherwise at which point you become a "convicted criminal".

So you're now claiming there's such a thing as an "innocent criminal", are
you ?

Nope, that at times there isnt adequate evidence
that a particular criminal did a particular crime
beyond reasonable doubt due to the lack of
witnesses etc. That criminal is still a criminal
if he actually did the crime;.

Otherwise why make the distinction ?

See above.