$22 theft got Queens pickpocket 15-to-life

A Queens judge sentenced a pickpocket to 15-to-life for stealing $22. (link fixed)
 

Undercover police officers busted the perp in 2004 as he tried to boost an old man's wallet on a city bus.

Prosecutors offered him an 8-month sentence if he were willing to plead guilty. He refused. Prosecutors then petitioned the court to designate him as a persistent felony offender.

Queens judge Arthur Cooperman was willing to play along, even though the pickpocket had no history of violence:

Truesdale was found guilty in June 2005 of grand larceny, possession of stolen property, three counts of jostling (bumping into the attended victim), and possession of a burglar's tools (the sweatshirt). In a hearing to determine if Truesdale was a persistent felony offender, his trial lawyer argued that his crimes were nonviolent and were committed only to feed drug and alcohol addictions that Truesdale was seeking help to control. Cooperman wasn't swayed, ruling that Truesdale—who by then had served four state-prison stints under three different names—deserved the "persistent" tag, and sentencing him to 15 years to life on the top charge and a year each, to run concurrently, on the other five counts. [Village Voice]

Luckily the court of appeals threw out the persistent felony offender designation last month.

Comments

[B-Money]

Yeah luckily. Now many other victims can experience the joy of being pickpocketed by a piece of shit drug addict. Alright! How long until this guy does resort to violence? What would you say to the family of a victim? Um, sorry, we could have put him away for a long time, but since he really was only a habitual thief, we couldn't. So now your husband/wife/son/etc. is dead.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Fifteen-to-life for a non-violent offender? C'mon. The guy has already served a couple of years in jail for the theft and he's going to get a parole hearing soon. You can't just lock people up because they might resort to violence someday.

Besides, if your goal is minimizing the number of non-violent offenders who become violent, the first step should be to minimize the number of non-violent offenders you send to prison.

[The Phantom]

There have been stories from other states with "three strikes you're out" provisions where a criminal, after sentanced to life after stealing, say, a bicycle.

The lazy press say "Man Gets Life for Stealing a Bike".

Which of course is not true. The guy in question would be receiving life for having committed three felonies.

Why does anyone keep wallet in a suit pocket or in the back of the pants? Makes it really easy for a pickpocket. Keep it in the front pants pocket, and its really steal without the victim noticing.

[The Phantom]

--Keep it in the front pants pocket, and its really hard to steal without the victim noticing.--

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

It's not the lazy press, it's the lede. It's news that anyone is facing a life sentence for property petty property crime. That's a serious problem with "three strikes" laws that the public needs to know about. These laws are sold as a way to keep rapists and murderers off the street forever. When that happens, that's good. But we also need to know who else gets caught up in that net.

The "repeat offender" designation is even worse because it's selective. Depending on the whims of the prosecutors and the judge, a person could face 8 months in jail or a 15-to-life sentence for lifting somebody's wallet. That's not justice. If this dude was such a threat to society, why did the prosecutors offer him an 8-month plea deal?

[B-Money]

Lindsay, I hear what you are saying. And I agree to a point. Especially on the plea offered. And on three strikes.

But this guy IS a threat to society. He will continue to steal when he is released. It is not as if he is causing no harm with his antics, like say a habitual pot smoker. He harms the victims of his thefts. I have had a wallet stolen and it sucks. All the hassle of getting a new DL, new CC's, ATM cards etc. I had my law license in my wallet when stolen, what an ordeal that became! And statistically, it is only a matter of time before he uses violence. What happens when someone catches him in the act? This man is a menace. He was caught for only a few of the many crimes I am sure he has committed. 15 to life is excessive, but 10-15 years sounds about right.

Phantom, blaming the victim, really? I keep my wallet in my rear pocket. So if I am robbed, it is my fault? Ridiculous.

[Dock Miles]

Keeping your wallet in your front pocket is a winner all around. It's just a simple safety precaution, no different than making sure you lock your car or your front door. And, as a bonus, it's much better for your back not to be sitting on your wallet all the time.

>And statistically, it is only a matter of time before he uses violence.

I'd like to see some actual statistics to back this up.

[B-Money]

Then go find them Dick!

[Dock Miles]

You're the one that made the assertion. If you don't have any source for your statement, well ...

[B-Money]

This isn't a research paper. So you do not know if non-violent felons who are drug users and serve prison terms will become violent at some point? It's just common sense. At some point, violence will be used. It's a slippery slope that people like this are on, same with drug use.

I like how you, as always, avoid the real point and meat of my post. Or do you just like to disagree with anything I say? Oh yes, I know you do, because...you are an oppressive prick who tried to bully people into submission and not commenting.

[Dock Miles]

It's a pretty damn key point, if it's true in any way. A main reason for overturning this guy's sentence is that he was not involved in any violent crime. He's 38, obviously been doing this for quite some time, I would hardly say it's "common sense" that he's going to resort to violence (let alone murder someone, as you also asserted). In fact, the court of appeals concluded the opposite. If that isn't the "real point and meat" of your comments, I don't know what is.

And here's some more news -- if asking you to support your statements with some facts is "bullying," then the internet needs a lot more of it. Just claiming something and whizzing on is a major reason empty shouting matches dominate so many discussions.

Finally, you don't make a very persuasive case that I'm "an oppressive prick who tried to bully people into submission" by slinging ugly cracks like that around.

[B-Money]

You are last person who should comment on mud slinging. You have a very long history of insulting people on this site. Your insult wars with The Phantom are proof enough. Not to mention anyone who dares put forth a non-conformist viewpoint.

The "key" point was that he does deserved to be locked up for an extended period of time. He is a habitual felony offender and shows no signs of rehabilitation. If he is indeed a drug user, as his own lawyer asserted, the odds are he will resort to some sort of violence at some point to satisfy his addiction. But I also agrred with LB that the 15 to life sentence was wrong. I put forth a 10-15 year suggestion. (By the way do you know nothing of drug use and crime?)

And while his crimes were non-violent, that does not lessen the impact on the victim. Robbery makes one feel very violated. I know from experience. I think I would have preferred in kick in the stomach. It sucked. The hassle and inconvienence and stress that consumed my life for three months was awful. Luckily I avoided identity theft. But screw the victim and their hassles, right? We need to protect the poor offender so he can continue to thieve and plunder.

[The Phantom]

See, me and Dock can agree on something.

Not blaming anyone. Just risk management.

[B-Money]

But for some people, like myself, the wallet in the front pocket is just not functional. Nor is it comfortable. And risk management? Who are you, Rueben Pfeffer from Along Came Polly? Based on that RM logic, we shouldn't drive either. Or engage in hundreds of activities that could result in harm of some kind.

[Dock Miles]

>The "key" point was that he does deserved to be locked up for an extended period of time.

Well, now that you've moved the goal posts, maybe. Remember, this was your first post:

>Yeah luckily. Now many other victims can experience the joy of being pickpocketed by a piece of shit drug addict. Alright! How long until this guy does resort to violence? What would you say to the family of a victim? Um, sorry, we could have put him away for a long time, but since he really was only a habitual thief, we couldn't. So now your husband/wife/son/etc. is dead.

Resorting to violence was sure central to that.

>(By the way do you know nothing of drug use and crime?)

Well, do you? You can't seem to cite anything other than "common sense" that all drug addicts resort to violence at some point. I repeat, the guy is 38 years old.

>You have a very long history of insulting people on this site.

Not of instigating it out of the blue, though.

And Phantom, when somebody's right about something, they're right. I do just call 'em as I see 'em.

[The Phantom]

I've never thank God had the experience of losing a wallet/ID/Credit Cards, but I know people that have gone through hell as the result of a wallet/purse being stolen. I favor stern punishment for those who commit this crime.

Its no small crime, as B-Money says. I know others who have been down this road, incl identity theft, and its no day at the beach. It can be worse than a violent assault. If you get a shot in the jaw, you may be better in a week, but if you have your ID stolen, you're in for many months of torment.

And if you oppose "selective" punishment, then you effectively support rigid punishment as many of the three strikes laws impose.

If someone repeatedly steals wallets or breaks in to homes or steals cars--I want them in prison for a very long time. It's just a petty property crime until it happens to you or someone close to you.

[B-Money]

Oh, I see, so insulting is OK if it is in rebuttal. By the way, you are now a liar as well. You have instigated insults with me in the past, and have with others as well.

Yes I do know a thing or two about drug use and crime. In undergrad, I interned for a major metropolitan police department. As interns we sorted through massive amounts of data on crime. The link between drug use and violent crime is astounding. They go hand in hand. I also grew up in a high crime drug riddled neighborhood. I saw the link between drugs and violence first hand. You? I thought not.

Since you have slecetive reading, let me once again point out that I agreed the sentence was too much. See that is how you are a prick. You intentionally avoid certain points but attmept to attack others. Address the posts as a whole, not piecemeal. You criticize other when they do that.

And what does it matter that the guy is 38 years old? You use this fact as if it is some sort of exculpatory point on the mans future actions. Are people 38 and over less likely to commit violent acts?

[B-Money]

Here ya go.

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html

[Church Secretary]

Just a thought, but wouldn't it be cheaper to try giving the guy some court-supervised treatment for his alleged drug abuse first? The notion that the offender in question is going to suddenly kill someone after an apparent career of nonviolent petty offenses is a bit of a stretch. Also, the calls for draconian punishment for relatively minor property crimes (yes, I've had my wallet stolen before, and it sucked!) are rather reactionary, especially while there are less expensive and more constructive alternatives out there.

[The Phantom]

I don't see movies like Along Came Polly or whatever that was with Jennifer can't cut it on the big screen Aniston or whatever. Carry the wallet outside the clothing if you wish. If its stolen, I will blame the criminal for the crime and will chastise you for bad judgment, and that alone.

I was told in high school that it was vastly smarter to carry the wallet in the front pocket. So I never carried it any other way, except for once in a while in the inside suit jacket pocket.

This has worked in blue jeans, in military clothing, in dress suits over a fairly long period of time.

If carrying the wallet up front is deemed not functional, examine why. Its probably just a matter of habit. And habits can change.

Lose some of the credit cards that you don't use, or various wallet detritus you don't need to carry every single day. And carry it up front every day starting tomorrow morning.

You can do what you please. But its smart and prudent to carry the wallet in the front pocket of the trousers, and never ever in the back pants pocket.

[Dock Miles]

This is why it makes sense to talk about specific crimes and specific criminals, rather than some generalized stance about a class of criminal activity.

This guy stole wallets. He did not steal identities. I haven't noticed anybody saying these are trivial acts. But I think it's clear one is more serious than the other.

Also, breaking and entering is a lot more aggressive and calculating crime than hot-wiring a car. Not to mention pickpocketing.

[B-Money]

"Also, the calls for draconian punishment for relatively minor property crimes...are rather reactionary, especially while there are less expensive and more constructive alternatives out there."

I agree if it a first or second offense. But when a person is a habitual felony offender, I do not feel that seeking harsh punishment is draconian or reactionary. Clearly this type of offender is beyond rehabilitation, so I see no need to waste valuable resources on a person like that.

[B-Money]

Phantom, I have reduced my wallet contents significantlly. I am down to a debit card, one CC, DL, insurance card, a couple of business cards and a Blockbuster card. I will give the front pocket a shot. You are right, it is a habit and habits can change.

[B-Money]

"This is why it makes sense to talk about specific crimes and specific criminals, rather than some generalized stance about a class of criminal activity.

This guy stole wallets. He did not steal identities. I haven't noticed anybody saying these are trivial acts. But I think it's clear one is more serious than the other.

Also, breaking and entering is a lot more aggressive and calculating crime than hot-wiring a car. Not to mention pickpocketing."

Dock, I can agree with that post. No they are not tivial, and yes he could be committing much more serious crimes. But as I have pointed out, this guy is a habitual felony offender. Should we wait until he does committ a more serious crime, or lock him up for his obvious inability to not obey the law?

[B-Money]

this should read" "...or lock him up for his obvious inability to obey the law?"

Sorry for the double negative.