Criminal Defense?

When is a criminal more than a criminal?

Whilst studying the topic of bandits and outlaws I came across one of the most difficult findings. I would hence suggest that being a bandit/outlaw is in itself not being bad. But being a bandit/outlaw is in general the act of being bad.
In this I mean that all of the attributes that contribute a criminal’s persona is being bad: hence fulfilling the intentions of being a criminal. So affectively the criminal is a good criminal because he/she completes the aim.
But I believe that an act, no matter how little can affect the society on the whole and the act of taking someone else’s choice is being bad: refer to ‘utilitarianism’ by John Stuart Mill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism.

Is a criminal always a criminal?
In the example of John Clavell from the 15th Century: he was notoriously known as a highwayman. When he was caught he was imprisoned and sentenced to death. But upon imprisonment he wrote a book on his remorse and was later released.
I on the other hand do not believe that a criminal can fully recover from such acts of being bad. As it is a mind set. Here is a link on John Clavell's work: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1036926&pageindex=1


What makes a criminal? Or is it a state of mind? In which case do we have a right to label someone 'criminal'?