Trickle down behaviour

A philosophical question: If one commits a crime but isn't convicted in court, is s/he still a "criminal"..? Yes, according to every dictionary I could find. For example, thefreedictionary.com defines criminal as:

One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.

Similarly, merriam-webster.com defines criminal simply as one who is "guilty of crime." No resource says anything about a requirement that one be convicted (i.e. in court). Consider: If someone rapes a girl but is never convicted—perhaps her testimony is poor, or perhaps the perp can afford a good lawyer—is he then not a "criminal"..? How about someone who breaks into a car and steals the stereo but is never caught, much less convicted. Is he a criminal..? Of course he is! He's simply one who got away with his crime. Happens all the time. Unfortunately, the inverse is also possible, and even more disturbing—people often are wrongly convicted of crimes they didn't commit. [ref1; ref2] The law, despite reading like an anal-retentive version of a tax form, is incredibly capricious. It is so because its enforcement is dominated by people with agendas.

This brings us to the current situation: the committee charged with hiring the new HOI includes one or more people applying for that position, e.g. Kristin Paul. If those individuals proceed any further, they'll be violating Wis. statutes. Of course, they are operating in an environment where corruption and sleaze is the rule. Outgoing HOI Brian Borkovec apparently violated the statute (conflict of interest) when he voted on his own salary earlier this year. His boss, Hoofer Advoosigator Jim Rogers, has committed battery, perjury, and other substantial crimes. And his boss, Union Director Mark Guthier, has also committed felonies including obstruction and perjury.

In such an environment, how can the subordinates be expected to behave any better..? That would be like asking your crew to wear their lifejackets when you're not wearing yours!