We must distinguish what is (not) a crime from what ought (not) to be a crime.
We should also distinguish the way legal systems actually work from how they
ought to work.
But that is another question altogether. The point is that the word "crime" cannot even be defined, except as "whatever the laws and courts say it is a crime". Without laws and courts, there are just 7 billion different opinions of what
ought to be a crime, and no objective way to choose among them.
So you seem to be saying that, in your opinion, the only thing that should be a crime is "initiate force on anyone". Well, that is not my opinion.
Then your opinion is inconsistent and, therefore, wrong. It is impossible for any logic-based system to attempt to impose your opinion. So there is no reason for Bitcoin to even try; and it won't.
Duh?
Fortunately, Bitcoin isn't a "system". It's a simple realization of fundamental natural law.
What "findamental natural law"?
If you refer to "guaranteed by math", it isn't: bitcoin is a process executed by humans with the aid of computers. The humans are unpredictable, and their computers can be programmed to do anything.
If you mean that "property" is a "natural" concept, you are just wrong. Property is a cultural invention that (like "crime") did not exist before humans invented governments and laws.
In particular, without laws and courts there is no concept of "property".
Individuals are perfectly capable of enforcing agreements without laws and courts.
How exacty? By shooting at each other? By starting a thread on bitcointalk?
An agreement or contract is useless if there isn't an authority that can force the parties to honor it, and arbitrate disagrements. That is why every functioning contract specifies the jurisdiction for resolving disputes over it. The ridiculous "contract" between Roger Ver and OKCoin showed very well what happens when that clause is missing...