[nonrandomstring]

Some true words.

One should generally prefer criminal gangs elected according to social contract, since they are basically "our* criminal gang.

As for moral relativism - not so much. There's enough consensus for judiciaries and criminologists to define objective criminal behaviours. I think you mean that we exercise more or less tolerance of the criminal behaviour of certain groups.

[Bakary]

It's a bit of both. We discriminate with regards to groups, but the measure of crime shifts quickly. Drugs or sexual orientations become legal or illegal. Killing is legal or illegal depending on whether it is performed in an approved way. Certain types of non-consensual genital mutilation are legal, others illegal. States tend to clash when their conception of justice differ too much. There are foundational concepts that most legal systems seem to share to provide stability, but for anything more complex there are always exceptions. The right to pollute, employment relationships, defamation etc. as soon as you move away from basic disorder removal it becomes more and more relative.