How to define a "crime" and a criminal? EASY! Crime and immorality is attacking first.
Here is the most basic, logical binary principle of law, which enables us to tell the difference between a law and a crime:
At all levels of human interaction, from the individual to all increasingly-large group levels (family, clan, tribe, nation, state) the Golden Rule of Law defines all situational morality most simply as "Do Not Attack First" and so enables the social contract to exist, by gaining us trust, economic progress BECAUSE of that trust (because we aren't wasting our time plotting attacks and defenses), and civilization, wherein we all agree to it - it's a free-will conscious contractual choice - and so enables us to realize that our only real right is to not be attacked first, and also that our only concomitant responsibility is to not attack (therefore innocent) others first.
In other words, I can do nothing either TO you, or FOR you, without getting your express consent first.
This is both how and why even the largest gang or group, "the state," has no inherent right to fraudulently, slanderously or pre-emptively "defensively" accuse any of it's real live individual human citizen component parts of any crimes by attacking them first; it's why we have "Innocent UNTIL PROVEN Guilty," and not, as criminal liberals always seem to prefer, "Guilty Until (Never) Proven Innocent!" Even 'the state' has no right to attack first!
And it's based on the fact that one can only have rights with reciprocal responsibility; to have rights without responsibility is to commit theft by extortion or fraud, as all criminals desire: to have rights (like, to your stuff) without any responsibility (like, for earning or paying for it). Even the falsely-sundered "criminal" and "civil" laws agree: you must pay for what you take.
So, the (Binary) Basics In Law are: "Do Not Attack First," and "You Must Pay For What You Take" (Rights only come with agreed-on, concomitant corollary Responsibilities).
Even small children already inherently, instinctively know this as the:
"But Mom! THEY STARTED IT! Rule."
...and it's also been the linchpin of all civilizations, The Golden Rule was coined first by Confucius in the correct, "Negative" rights way (as Mark Levin puts it) as "Do NOT Do Unto Others" which pre-dates the false, nannystate and micro-managing criminal "positivist" Christian phraseology, of "Do Unto Others" which can be endlessly exploited because it subjectively attacks all others first, pretending one can do whatever one wants TO everyone else, as long as one excuses one's self first by claiming to do it FOR them.
It's part of the Doctor's Hippocratic Oath: Primum Non Nocere, or: "First, Do No Harm" and it's even encoded right in the UN's own founding charter, which defines the #1 war-crime as "to be the aggressor in war."
Even liberal social engineers admit it exists, in their so-called "Precautionary Principle" caveat.
And a somewhat garbled version was even developed hypothetically into Star Trek's "Prime Directive."
Even the so-called 'Ten Commandments' are really only symptoms of this most basic binary moral Principle: the first five are "Fear and Obey," while the second five are "Do not steal" i.e: "Greed NOT; Be Fearful!" i.e: do not attack first. The criminal opposite would be "Fear NOT; Be Greedy!" (see islam's sharia crime "law").
In fact, all valid sub-sequent legislations are based on this one main principle: to be a criminal, one must have intended to attack first; after all, choosing to attack first, defines one's self as the predatory criminal aggressor, and they as one's innocent victims; there's no two ways about it. Bearing in mind of course that threats (i.e: intimidation; bullying; harassment; coercion; duress; activist agitation; extortion; terrorism) ARE attacks, and that attacking second (counter-attacking) is a de rigeur requirement for the existence of all deterrent and punitive justice.
All valid laws are put as: "If you choose to attack first in these ways, then these (not necessarily proportional) responses will occur." They are warnings, not threats, because they involve if/then free-will cause and effect.
Idolatrous false laws, on the other hand, are pre-emptive slanders, and so are crimes in themselves, such as gun control laws: "SINCE you own guns, SO you will use them to commit crimes, SO we must take them away from you and attack you first, to defend our selves!" They are frauds; victim-blaming attacks and crimes in themselves.
The slanderous exact opposite of The Golden Rule of Law, is what I call the brazen rule of crime and chaos: "It is our holy right and duty to always attack all the others first! The best defense is a good offense!"
Deciding to obey this ages-old jungle-law of group-might-makes-right only inflicts distrust, stagnation, and barbarism.
For instance: islam's idolatrous sharia holds not that "If you choose to attack first in these ways, then these punishments will apply" but in stead, that: "If you ARE a member of these (slanderously, falsely and prejudicially defined as criminal simply for existing) groups, THEN these punishments restrictions and criminal attacks will be inflicted upon you!"
And those non-protected groups are all based on might makes right: infidel foreigners, women, children, and slaves, WILL all be officially and "legally" discriminated against, in sharia!
Same goes for any and all "group" rights scenarios; when some or any groups (of individual humans) have more and less rights than other groups (of individual humans), then they give non-members LESS rights, by definition; UN-equal protections under the law; thus, group rights "laws" are really only crimes in them selves.
Corporations, (despite the past frauds of bribed "judges," falsely defined as the "Legal FICTION of the Corporate Person,") are only groups or gangs, and so should not have any human rights at all; they are only, in fact, exercises in criminal negligence conspiracies.
Say you or I, as individuals, went before a judge and said: "Your Honor, I want to take risks which will only affect other people, for gains which will only accrue to myself!" he'd probably tell us to get lost, or jail us for attempted criminal negligence, right? Obviously, us asking for responsibility-free rights which will harm innocent others is an illegal scheme.
But if we declare our selves to be in a gang of potential criminals, as a "corporate" group, then suddenly the ages-old might-makes-right excuse seems to kick in, and we're automatically granted "limited liability" (no-responsibility rights) status! Hey presto, the (dis-)corporate ring of power renders us invisible to all real human legal culpability! Neat trick eh!
FINALLY, it's implicit in morality that when one chooses to NOT agree with it, to NOT agree to not attack first, one is thereby reserving the false right to attack (thereby innocent) others first - and, by doing so, one is projecting a criminal psychological threat attack, and is thus immoral by pretending to be merely "amoral."
Criminals believe in the fake Golden Rule, ("Do Unto Others as you would have done unto yourself") which enables them to pretend they are entitled to do anything to others which they have done to themselves; i.e: "I'd LOVE to be oppressed and ruled with an iron fist by ME, even if I wasn't me!"
This fake 'golden rule' is really only the same brazen rule of criminal chaos which asserts one is allowed to do things TO one's victims, as long as one can pretend to be doing those things FOR them!
This enables them to make fake, one-sided criminally negligent "contracts" to and with them selves which they can them pretend also apply to other people:
And, "if I punch myself in the head first, then that entitles me to punch you in your head, too!"
"Trust me, this hurts ME more than it does you!"
They also get to pretend that, when they CHOOSE to take personal "risks" (like, of being caught for their crimes) then their victims owe them the loot in compensation for all the trouble they took stealing it!
Just like how on The Sopranos, the mob always called their crimes "earnings!"
All criminals believe in having rights (like, to our stuff) without concomitant corollary responsibilities (like, for having to pay for or otherwise earn it) and that the ends (their enrichment) justifies the means (screwing over their victims).
THIS IS WHY CONFUCIUS' ('NEGATIVE RIGHTS') VERSION IS RIGHT, AND THE CHRISTIAN ('POSITIVIST') ONE IS WRONG:
Morality and Law are pretty simple, as Mark Levin notes: “negative” rights based on the Golden Rule of Law (most simply defined as: Do Not Attack First)!
It means, in principle, that everything is disallowed except that which is specifically allowed – between two or more people, this means I don’t have any right or responsibility to do anything either TO, or ‘FOR,’ you, without your express permission! So this ‘social contract’ means that our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only real responsibility is to not attack (thereby innocent) others, first!