The Romans didn’t execute common criminals by that method.
Crucifixion was reserved for crimes against Rome. So it is highly unlikely that Jesus was flanked on Cavalry by thieves.
You know, I suppose I could have been charged with heresy and burned for saying such things not too very long ago, or at least flogged. But that was then and this is now.
Today, you may not have enough self-respect to control yourself by not making outlandish statements—such as that Welch’s grape juice and unsalted crackers actually become flesh & blood—but if you do, you’ve got to expect to be called on it by those of us who do have some respect for ourselves and the truth.
What if they stole from Caesar?
You are correct. Most likely all three involved, Jesus included, were charged as insurrectionists against Rome. The notion that the Jews in charge at the time were in cahoots with Pilate is, let’s just say, highly unlikely.
Are you arguing for a better English word to use for the Greek words given or denying the Gospels ? And if you don't have the faith to believe the Gospels, why should anyone listen to you about what Jesus told us in the Gospels ?
Matthew and Mark use 3027 lēstḗs a thief ("robber"), stealing out in the open (typically with violence). 3027 /lēstḗs ("a bandit, briard") is a thief who also plunders and pillages an unscrupulous marauder (malefactor), exploiting the vulnerable without hesitating to use violence.
Luke uses 2557 kakoúrgos (from 2556 /kakós, "a malignant disposition") "a malefactor; a technical word implying criminality. William Ramsay noted this term "marks exactly the tone of the Neronian period, and . . . refers expressly to the flagitia, for which the Christians were condemned under Nero, and for which they were no longer condemned in ad 112" (WS).
John uses both words when discussing Jesus being subject to crucifixion and the release of Barabbas from crucifixion.