zlacker

Whether someone "is a criminal" should have something to do with how much of a regular part of their life it is. Just like someone who smoked a joint once 20 years ago isn't considered a drug user, someone who committed a one-off crime isn't a criminal.

>>ryandr+(OP)
We are down pretty deep into pedantry at this point, but... Current definition is that someone who has committed a crime and been convicted is a criminal. If that crime is a felony, they are also a felon. Depending on the state of residence, felons may have voting rights suspended, may be disqualified from jobs, loans, educational grants, etc.

You are right to point out that we usually use the noun "criminal" more to refer to someone that makes a habit of crime or makes their living from crime.

And I'll also add that the word "criminal" is often used to imply someone is subhuman. Possibly subconsciously, but it's common to see people outraged by police brutality only if they think an innocent person is the victim. Things like "no innocent person should be treated that way." I think this is the primary objective of the ever-present ad-hominem attacks such as "well he was no angel."

>>Miguel+D7
I don't think this is "deep into pedantry". I think it's probably one aspect of the most important conversation we need to have about the effect that "organizing the world's information" has on society.

The extraordinary permanence of certain aspects of identity ("criminal", "felon", "rapist", "racist", etc.) in the information age is radically different from how identity has worked for the past 100 years or so. The possibility of "starting over" is gone.