I’m assuming that when John “J.R.” Hills wrote his letter (Dec. 18) about letters regarding presidential pardons, he was referring to the one that was submitted by Denise Lite (Dec. 11, “A Dangerous Pardon Policy”) when calling those who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, “criminals.”  Criminals? Really?  I think at this point we’re talking semantics.  What really is a “criminal,” Mr. Hills, and at what point does a person become a criminal?  Oh yeah, we’re going there. You opened the can. Now the worms are squirming out. That’s what happens. There’s a guy out there who gunned down the CEO of the largest insurance company in the U.S. According to the law he is a murderer, but is he a “criminal”? If you listen to the chatter on social media you’d think he was Robin Hood. Do you think that’s because he did something that thousands of hard-working, law-abiding people have dreamed of doing or is it just because he’s really good-looking (a lot of girls want to marry him now)? Were the folks who dressed up as Indians and dumped British tea into Boston Harbor in 1773 criminals? Were the men who joined and fought for the Confederacy criminals? Were the guys who fled to Canada to avoid being sent to Vietnam criminals? For there to be a “crime,” three elements must be satisfied: 1) voluntary act, 2) state of mind (as in, “criminal intent”), and 3) harm.  Regardless of what happened on Jan. 6, Mr. Hills, I see very little (if any) “criminal intent,” hence, they are not really “criminals,” merely misguided unfortunates.  Are you ready to judge them? I would pardon you if you did.  Arthur Saginian Santa Clarita The post Arthur Saginian | Criminals in Eye of the Beholder? appeared first on Santa Clarita Valley Signal.