Short answer: No.
It all relies on two things; Justification and rehabilitation.
Justification is simple, here stands a convicted rapist, a murderer and a child molester. We know they do it, maybe they’ve been convicted of the crime, maybe we know they have been let off on mere technicalities, whatever. People can justify the act of retribution against them, maybe kill them, maybe rape them back, an eye for an eye. Or maybe it’s simply a case of stealing or causing damage to their operation or daily life in order to make it harder for them to commit their crimes. Whatever the case, you’ll never get a consensus, but you very well may get a group of people leaning towards a particular cause of action or witch-hunt.
But your query is far too wide. A known criminal? Of what? Do we go as far to justify committing civil offences against those who trespass? Do we go as far to justify committing crimes against those who maybe did something silly when they were drunk? For example, a person who punched a window in order not to take his anger out on another human being, who subsequently turned himself in and was convicted but let go as a redeemable person who committed a (hopefully) one off offence? His crime? Minor Criminal Damage. Does he thus become a justified target for ‘criminal activity’?
And what of those who are committing the ‘crime’ against those known criminals? Do they automatically become eligible to be attacked tit for tat, because even if something is ‘acceptable’ it doesn’t mean that it isn’t any more a crime than what the original offenders did in the first place. You’ll end up with a world of ‘criminals’, whether known or otherwise.
The second factor is Rehabilitation;
You can’t justify committing crimes against a person who is a ‘known criminal’ who may very well be on the path to rehabilitation. Interacting with society and attempting to reform their ways, they may well have not committed an offence for an exceedingly long period of time (5, 10, 15 years), that they committed one offence doesn’t necessarily mean they should be subject to criminal offences, nor should it be acceptable for that. There has to be a period of time that allows the offender to not re-offend, in fact plenty of people don’t re-offend, people do minor crimes, usually when young and doing something in the heat of the moment, or down to immaturity and deserve the chance to get back into their lives as the criminal system and society is want to do.
A third factor, is that each crime is an individual incident that requires in-depth examination of the circumstances. Some are victims of circumstances, some are victims of provocation or of a situation they weren’t fully aware of. Plus, the legal system in some events do not allow for defences to some offences, for example being an ‘illegal alien’ in the UK without permission was an offence that only required you to BE in the UK without permission, it had no defences to that charge, (going off memory) a woman was evicted from France border control and put on a plane to England, she was arrested on the spot and charged and convicted of that crime before being deported back to her homeland of Ireland, is she too, now a target that is acceptable? She has the criminal record, for something she had no control over.
The more you know of the intricacies of law, the way it operates, the defences, the non-defences and the purposes of the legal system, the more you can attempt to rationalise whether something is ‘acceptable’ or not. I think the reasons I’ve given, more than explain the reasons why the answer to your statement is ‘no’, and I believe there is no way, an educated person of law could argue otherwise, as a whole and not in ‘parts’ or in scenarios, how the law would be able to operate within its system on an objective basis and any attempts to do so in a subjective manner would result in the power going to a person, or group of persons who would eventually be the victim of ‘he who fights monsters’.