Death for Cruel Police Deserving

 DECCAN INQUIRER  

e news  bi-weekly

EDITOR: NAGARAJA.M.R ....

VOL.22 .. .ISSUE...32……19/04/2026

Editorial :  Shameless  Police

     Police illegally detain commoners  , suspects  in crimes. They inflict 3rd degree Torture  on them , those people unable to bear torture , pain confess to crimes even though  not committed by them.  

      Police claim  it is  necessary  to extract truth , fine.  As per same police logic  police officials themselves  accused  of crimes like robbery , theft , kpsc police si question  paper leakers , etc are not subjected to 3rd degree Torture  why ?

        As per same police logic  karnataka  chief  minister  siddaramaiah  and  movie star darshan  not subjected to 3rd degree Torture  by police to extract truths in MUDA site golmaal and  renukaswamy murder cases respectively , why  ?

        At the least police  should have subjected  siddaramaiah  and  darshan to lie detector tests to extract truth. It was also not done by police. Why ?

          Police are public servants not public masters. Police  must respect law and law prohibits 3rd degree  Torture. Police must enforce law equally to a commoner  or chief minister  or movie star. 

          We salute  honest few in police service and request those honest few to book their corrupt  shameless police colleagues.

          Jai Hind. Vande Mataram.

Your's

NAGARAJA M R

      Read : 

 https://e-inquirer.blogspot.com/2025/02/siddaramaiah-darshan-police-torture.html?m=1  ,

  

Editorial  :   Karnataka Police  Accountability ?

RTI information request to Honourable Home Secretary Government of Karnataka

Honourable Sir,

In democracy flow of information between government and public is essential, a must. Every indian citizen has right to seek & get information as part of his fundamental right of expression.

In addition to this government has enacted RTI Act fixing responsibilities on public servants.

There is no bar on number of informations requested . Also if information is not with the requested section of the department but with another section of same department, then that part of RTI application must be transferred to that particular section. Public servant can not shirk stating he doesn't have information. Also nobody can charge above Rs.10.

Cunning public servants to hide crimes have invented their own interpretations of RTI Act and deny informations under various pretexts.

All our following information request concerns one subject ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVANTS IN YOUR DEPARTMENT. If you don't have information with you , transfer it to official who has that information.

To my previous requests , you have not given information requested and gave elusive replies, partial information just like criminals do during police interrogation. Your denial of information amounts to crime cover ups making yourselves criminals. 

Please give me full  correct  information about following under RTI Act :

List of action taken against police and other department officials involved in bellary mining scam as reported by Honourable Karnataka lokayukta Justice Santhosh Hegde.

List of action taken against advocates and police responsible for riots in city civil court bengaluru.

List of action taken against police officials involved in dacoity at yelwal mysuru ?

List of action taken against police officials involved in lottery scam.

List of action taken against STF police personnel who illegally tortured innocent tribals in MM hills during operation veerappan and indicted by Justice A J Sadashiva commission.

List of action taken against police officials who tortured , lathi charged innocent old people , pregnant women during mahadayi protests.

List of action taken against parappana agrahara jail officials colluding with criminals / jail inmates as mentioned in report by DIG Roopa.

Give me the list of police officials facing corruption , criminal charges with their names and posting.

Full list of complaints / appeals made by me to karnataka police through DARPG , DPG , PGRTL websites.

G10. Copies of statements taken from accused , copies of letters sent to government and action taken by police with regards to each complaint / appeal.

List of action taken by karnataka police to enquire people with legal immunity in above mentioned complaints.

Paying guest accommodation has mushroomed every where. Some PGs resemble lodges. Give us list of actions by police to monitor PGs.

Inform us the amount of ransom paid from karnataka state exchequer to forest brigand veerappan to free kidnapped movie star raj kumar and ex minister nagappa.

Many big jewellery shops are running gold chit funds and collecting monthly EMI from public. Give us list of actions taken by police to stop it.

Years back few female prisoners of parappana agrahara jail have accused jail officials of forcing them into sex trade within jail premises. List of action taken against guilty jail police.

Give us the status of enquiry regarding accusation against IPS Kempaiah wrongly claiming ST caste reservation.

List of police officials facing enquiry and how many indicted for wrongly claiming SC ST OBC caste reservation.

Give us the status of enquiry regarding alleged involvement of then DCP Malagathi in property dispute of taxidermist van ingen.

List of police officials caught by ACB Karnataka Lokayukta in last 30 years.

Give us statistics of undertrials and convicts with caste break up in last 20 years.

KPSC scams are frequent and how many police officials are in service whose recruitment process itself is in question before judiciary. Give us the list of police officials whose selection is pending adjudication.

Police frequently conduct raids on jails unearthing weapons, mobiles, drugs. It is not possible without connivance of jail police. Give us the list of jail raids conducted in last 30 years and action taken by police in each case.

Give us list of deaths of under trials , convicts happened in police station , jails in last 30 years and list of action taken against guilty police officials in each case.

Give us the yearly conviction rate of criminals in last 30 years.

List of accused persons acquitted by courts in last 30 years. Year wise statistics please.

Give us the list of amount of compensation paid by government to each acquitted person for suffering injustice at the hands of government.

List of action taken against guilty police officials in each case who wrongly accused innocents of crimes.

List of cases of dalit atrocities registered in karnataka in last 30 years.

Few dalits misuse provisions of dalits atrocities prevention act to fix their opponents. List of false dalit atrocities cases filed in last 30 years. List of action taken against such dalits in each case.

Copy of case diary with regards to roost resort sex scandal involving high court judges.

Please give us the break up numbers of police stations in karnataka having working CCTV connection and stations without CCTV connection.

Most of the times common people are orally summoned to police stations , enquiry, detention not recorded in station diary. This facilitates few guilty police to escape legal prosecution in cases of third degree torture & lock up deaths. List of actions government has taken to prevent oral summons , illegal detentions and third degree torture of innocents by police.

 List of Police officials (including those on deputation ) facing criminals charges ,

departmental enquiry in the past 20 years. Give us name of police official , current

posting, description of charges against them yearwise from 2004.

 List of judges , quasi judicial officers like tahsildars , deputy commissioner, sub

registrar , etc (including those on deputation ) facing criminals charges , police

departmental enquiry in the past 20 years. Give us name of concerned official ,

current posting, description of charges against them yearwise from 2004.

List of action taken against police officials involved in dharmasthala sowjanya murder  case  cover up  , for framing innocent santhosh rao  in the crime , using  3rd  torture on him  to murder him.

List of action taken against periyapatna police officials involved in  framing innocent  tribal Suresh   in the  murder , using  3rd  torture on him to murder him.

Did karnataka police officially Apologize  to  innocents santhosh rao and Tribal Suresh  ? Did police pay any compensation  to both of them ? If not why ?

Thank you 

Nagaraja M R

 

Udayakumar custodial death: CBI moves Supreme Court against acquittal of police officers

A trial court had sentenced the two police officers to death but the High Court had set aside the conviction.

The Supreme Court on Friday (April 17) issued notice to two accused police officers from Kerala on a plea challenging their acquittal in the Udayakumar custodial death case [Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Jitha Kumar K & Ors.].

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta sought responses from the accused police officers on the appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the Kerala High Court's verdict acquitting the two officers.

"Issue notice returnable on 19th May" the Court said.

Last year, the Kerala High Court had acquitted and set aside the death sentence awarded to police officers K Jithakumar and SV Sreekumar by a CBI court in 2018 in connection with the custodial death of a 26-year-old man, Udayakumar.

The High Court had also set aside the conviction and three-year imprisonment awarded to three other police officers - TK Haridas, T Ajith Kumar and EK Sabu - who had been found guilty of conspiracy and destruction of evidence.

The case dates back to 2005 when Udayakumar was allegedly apprehended by police from a park in Thiruvananthapuram along with another individual.

The prosecution case was that police suspected them of possessing stolen money and subjected Udayakumar to custodial torture at the Fort police station.

A post-mortem examination reportedly revealed that Udayakumar had suffered more than 40 injuries on his thighs and lower abdomen.

Following allegations of delay in the investigation by the State police, the CBI took over the probe in 2008 after Udayakumar’s mother approached the High Court.

In 2018, a CBI special court in Thiruvananthapuram convicted five police officers in the case. The trial court awarded death sentences to Jithakumar and Sreekumar for murder, while three other officers were sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for conspiracy and destruction of evidence.

All five officers subsequently challenged the conviction before the Kerala High Court, which allowed their appeals and acquitted them of all charges.

The CBI then moved the Supreme Court.

Following the top court's notice, the case will be heard next on May 19 after the police officers file their responses.

Justice is served in Sattankulam

The judgment in the Sattankulam custodial torture case arrived with the fragrance of justice. The court found nine policemen guilty of the torture and murder of Jayaraj and Benicks, and sentenced them to death. That the father-son duo were beaten to death for keeping their shop open 15 minutes after COVID curfew — as claimed by the police but debunked by the CBI probe — was horrific, but the process of law that followed was bone chilling. That injustice is what the Madurai First Additional District and Sessions judge corrected.

On April 6, 2026, the corridors of the Madurai District Court echoed with the harrowing cries of a family that felt it had finally been met with justice. The court’s verdict, finding nine police officers guilty of the custodial torture and murder of P. Jayaraj, 58, and his son J. Benicks, 31,in what has come to be called the Sattankulam Custodial torture case, laid bare the profound agony of a household shattered by those who had sworn to protect them.

The grief of the kith and kin served as a haunting reminder of the brutality inflicted by men in uniform, who turned their power into a weapon of fatal violence. The verdict delivered by G. Muthukumaran, the Madurai First Additional District and Sessions Judge, stands as a historic milestone in India’s legal landscape regarding police brutality.

Inspector S. Sridhar, Sub-Inspectors P. Raghu Ganesh and K. Balakrishnan, and head constables S. Murugan and A. Saamidurai; and constables M. Muthuraj, S. Chelladurai, X. Thomas Francis, and S. Veilumuthu —to death, the court issued a daring and landmark judgment. Special sub-inspector Pauldurai was also accused. He died pending trial after contracting COVID-19.

This ruling signals a shift towards uncompromising accountability for State-sponsored violence, activists have said.

For J. Selvarani,60, the conviction of the nine officers was the culmination of a six-year long nightmare. Standing in the courtroom where the killers of her husband and son were finally judged, and commensurately, the 60-year-old declared: “Justice is finally served.” “May their souls rest in peace,” she cried, tears flowing down her cheeks.

Once strangers to the legal system, Jayaraj’s family was thrust into a world of depositions and court dates following the horrors that happened at the Sattankulam police station. For six years, J. Persis, 38, one of Jayaraj’s daughters, recalled, the family lived in a state of perpetual anxiety, their lives consumed by the exhausting effort to voice a pain that the system of justice seemed slow to acknowledge. She remarked that this verdict must act as a deterrent for any officer who believes they are above the law. By holding these men accountable, the court has sent a clear message: the badge is not a license to kill, and the era of unchecked custodial violence must end.

Henri Tiphagne, Executive Director of People’s Watch, hailed the verdict as a definitive example of an extraordinary case within the jurisprudence of State-sponsored violence. He noted that the case serves as a prime illustration of how a court can fundamentally alter the trajectory of justice through proactive and rigorous oversight. He further emphasised that, in a rare move, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court placed itself at the heart of the matter, intervening decisively even before the formal investigation had fully commenced.

The deaths of the father and son occurred on the consecutive days of June 22, 2020 and June 23, 2020. On the very next day, June 24, 2020, a Division Bench of Justices P.N. Prakash (since retired) and B. Pugalendhi of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court initiated suo motu proceedings in connection with the custodial torture and deaths case, he recalled.

In a historic departure from precedent in Tamil Nadu, the High Court issued a decisive order for the Thoothukudi Collector to dispatch revenue officials to seize control of the Sattankulam police station. This extraordinary move was designed to secure critical evidence and protect relevant materials from potential tampering, he noted. Simultaneously, a forensic team was deployed to gather and preserve evidence for eventual handover to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

According to Mr. Tiphagne, this judicial intervention was the only thing that prevented the police officers from potentially using violence to confront and intimidate even the judicial officers overseeing the inquiry. “This case demonstrates not only the High Court’s ability to oversee every micro-detail of a proceeding but also how proactive judicial intervention can elevate the standing and efficacy of our district courts,” he stated

By exercising rigorous oversight without encroaching upon the independent roles of the trial court or the investigative body, the High Court established its capacity to act as an effective facilitator in ensuring the integrity of proceedings across various other cases, legal experts have commented.

Advocate V. Rajiv Rufus, who represented the victims as an assistant prosecutor, noted that the case stands as a powerful testament to what can be achieved when a conscious society and a robust legal system unite. He emphasised that this synergy effectively dismantled the ‘limitless impunity’ historically enjoyed by law enforcement agencies.

Recalling the period of the incident, he noted that the COVID-19 lockdown was a time when every citizen in the State felt the impact of intensified and often rigid policing. The murder of the father and son during this period resonated deeply with the public, awakening a collective sense of outrage and dormant emotions across the masses. “This widespread public sentiment, combined with immediate judicial intervention, ensured the preservation of vital evidence and paved the way for holding the accused accountable for the brutal killing of two innocent lives,” he stated.

Although initial setbacks threatened to slow down the proceedings, the High Court’s repeated orders to expedite the trial provided much-needed relief to the victims’ family. There was a period of renewed anxiety when the trial court judge sought to re-examine witnesses; since producing witnesses is the prerogative of the prosecution, the victims’ legal team feared this move might derail or further delay the trial. Ultimately, the court arrived at a death sentence, influenced by the unique circumstances of the case, Mr. Rufus observed.

The judge noted that, unlike the heat of an instantaneous encounter, these officers had ample time to introspect and cease their violence. Furthermore, the court was moved by the fact that Benicks had shown a forgiving attitude toward the police after his initial attempt to defend his father. All these factors convinced the judge that the killing was not an unavoidable accident, but rather a deliberate and cold-blooded act of brutality.

Despite the landmark verdict, Mr. Tiphagne maintained that the justice system’s success was only partial. He argued that while the High Court and Sessions Court’s roles were commendable, the initial tragedy was enabled by a catastrophic failure of duty at the local level. Specifically, he pointed to the Judicial Magistrate and the doctor Vennila at the Sattankulam Government Hospital, both of whom failed to act as the legal and medical safeguards they were meant to be.

Maja Daruwala, Senior Advisor to the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative and Chief Editor of the India Justice Report, addressed a letter to the then Chief Justice of the Madras High Court Justice Amareshwar Pratap Sahi, on July 9, 2020. In it, she highlighted the conduct of Saravanan, the Judicial Magistrate of Sattankulam. She asserted that there was a high probability that the Magistrate’s negligent performance of his statutory duties had a direct and fatal impact on P. Jayaraj and J. Benicks, who had been subjected to severe torture while in police custody. “Meanwhile, I am given to understand that the Judicial Magistrate continues to sit and perform his duties in a manner uninterrupted by any administrative or penal inquiries or sanction. This is unfortunate. While this unresolved cloud of concern hangs over his competence, the public should not be subject to his services. It is not right and proper that he should be performing his functions as if his possible contribution to the fatalities of two people is a matter of little concern,” she had noted.

Ms. Daruwala recorded that the court records revealed a disturbing sequence of events where the severely injured father and son were moved from the police station to the hospital, and finally to Judicial Magistrate Saravanan’s residence for remand. “Initial reports indicate that the Magistrate granted remand based solely on police documents and the claim that the victims were waiting in a police van, failing to physically examine them or ask any questions as strictly required by the Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Rules of Practice 2019. Even as later reports suggested a brief video call occurred, the remand remained a mechanical formality,” the letter added.Despite the victims having been in custody for over 10 hours with visible, horrific injuries, no lawyer was provided—even though the Magistrate served as the Chairperson of the Taluk Legal Services Authority and had the explicit power to appoint counsel or release the men on bail, she stressed.

“This failure to provide a legal safeguard or a physical wellness check meant that by the time the remand was finalised in broad daylight on June 20, the opportunity to intervene had passed; two days later, both men succumbed to the injuries they had sustained during that final night in the Sattankulam station,” Ms. Daruwala mentioned.

Mr. Tiphagne citing Ms.Daruwala’s emphasis on the Legal Service Authority, said, the state of the free legal service in the country had failed to stand with the needy people and the victims as it did in its previous avatar Tamil Nadu Free Legal Aid Board. Former Madras High Court Judge K. Chandru on speaking about the free legal service, noted, “The Legal Services Authority (LSA) has, since its inception, faced significant structural failures.” “A primary turning point toward this decline was the mandate—supported by Supreme Court orders—stipulating that only sitting judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts may hold leadership offices,” he added. This has transformed a service-oriented body into a power-based hierarchy. This exclusion is so rigid that even the visionary Justice P.N. Bhagwati was reportedly denied a role in NALSAR on the grounds of being retired, he recalled.

Commenting on the failure of the LSA, Justice Chandru, stated, “The LSA operates more as a bureaucratic machine than a service for the poor.” The impressive statistics published after National Lok Adalat are often mere “window dressing,” where cases are moved to the Adalat simply for data-padding purposes—sometimes even delaying already decided cases just to boost disposal numbers.

Furthermore, the judiciary’s time is wasted acting as a debt collection agency for private entities, such as telephone companies, he said, adding, “The professional standards of the legal panel have declined to such a degree that even indigent litigants, who are entitled to free aid, are reluctant to seek their assistance.”

Speaking on another important aspect of the case, forensic expert Karunakaran Mathiharan, co-author of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, identified traumatic rhabdomyolysis as the primary cause of death for P. Jayaraj and J. Benciks. This condition occurs when repeated heavy blows to the muscles release myoglobin—a protein that normally stores oxygen in muscle tissue—directly into the bloodstream. Once in the blood, myoglobin becomes toxic, leading to a spike in creatinine phosphokinase (CPK) levels and ultimately causing acute kidney failure.

Mr. Henri Tiphagne observed that this medical phenomenon is a recurring factor in several custodial torture cases across Tamil Nadu, often providing a legal loophole for the police. Because the physiological collapse—specifically renal failure—typically occurs a few days after the physical assault, officers frequently escape immediate liability. He stressed that this case, alongside the recent custodial death of Ajith Kumar in Madapuram, must serve as vital legal precedents to hold law enforcement accountable for the delayed, yet direct, fatal consequences of torture.

Heroes who stood up

Thiagu, the coordinator of the Joint Action Against Custodial Torture (JAACT)—a movement founded in the wake of this tragedy—hailed the verdict as a monumental victory. He specifically identified Revathi, then Head Constable and Beulah Selvakumar, at the Sattankulam police station, as the ‘heroes’ of the case.

“She deserves a significant reward to honour her immense courage in testifying against colleagues she had worked with for years, an act that was pivotal in securing the conviction,” he argued. Unlike the Vachathi case, a murderous assault of the tribal people of Vachathi in Dharmapuri, where victims waited decades for justice, this verdict was delivered with a speed that offers genuine hope to activists and citizens fighting state-sponsored violence.

While the judgment is a milestone, Mr. Thiagu warned that a single verdict cannot end police brutality. Invoking the principle that “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” he emphasised that society must maintain a constant, watchful eye to prevent similar atrocities from occurring elsewhere in the world.

DEATH PENALTY

We know that, together, we can end the death penalty everywhere.

Every day, people are executed and sentenced to death by states as punishment for a variety of crimes – sometimes for acts that should not be criminalized. In some countries, people are served death sentences for drug-related offences, which are not crimes for which the death penalty may be imposed under international law and standards. In others, this cruel punishment is reserved for security offences and murder.

Some countries execute people who were under the age of 18 when the crime for which they have been convicted was committed, others use the death penalty against people with mental and intellectual disabilities. In many instances the death penalty has been imposed after unfair trials and appeals – in clear violation of international law and standards. People can spend years on death row, not knowing when their time is up, or whether they will see their families one last time. Secretive state practices also means that we still do not know exactly how many people are executed each year in several countries – including China.

The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception – regardless of who is accused, the nature or circumstances of the crime, guilt or innocence or method of execution.

Previous

Next

About the death penalty

Amnesty International holds that the death penalty breaches human rights, in particular the right to life and the right to live free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Both rights are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN in 1948.

Over time, the international community has adopted several instruments that ban the use of the death penalty, including the following:

The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty.

Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the abolition of the death penalty, and Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances.

The Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty.

Although international law says that the use of the death penalty must be restricted to the most serious crimes, meaning intentional killing, Amnesty International believes that the death penalty is never the answer.

Our campaigning against this abhorrent punishment works. We will continue until we have put an end to the death penalty.

Agnès Callamard, Secretary General, Amnesty International

Juvenile Executions

The use of the death penalty for crimes committed by people younger than 18 is prohibited under international human rights law, yet some countries still resort to the death penalty in these situations. Such executions are few compared to the total number of executions recorded by Amnesty International each year.

However, their significance goes beyond their number and calls into question the commitment of the executing states to respect international law.

Since 1990 Amnesty International has documented at least 176 executions of people who were below the age of 18, in 11 countries: China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, the USA and Yemen.

Several of these countries have changed their laws to exclude the practice. Iran has executed more than twice as many people who were below the age of 18 at the time of the crime as the other ten countries combined. At the time of writing Iran has executed at least 122 of them since 1990.

Execution Methods used in 2024

Beheading

Hanging

Lethal injection

Shooting

Nitrogen gas asphyxiation

113

countries had abolished the death penalty in law by the end of 2024

1,518

the number of executions Amnesty International recorded in 2024 – up 32% from 2023

1,000S

of people were likely executed in China but the numbers remain classified

Where do most executions take place?

In 2024, the countries with the highest number of executions were China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen – in that order.

China remained the world’s leading executioner – but the true extent of its use of the death penalty is unknown as this data is classified as a state secret; the global figure of at least 1,518 excludes the thousands of executions believed to have been carried out there.

Excluding China, 87% of all reported executions took place in just two countries – Iran, Saudi Arabia.

The global view: death sentences and executions 2010-2024

*This map indicates the general locations of boundaries and jurisdictions and should not be interpreted as Amnesty International’s view on disputed territories.

**Country names listed reflect nomenclature in April 2025

How many death sentences and executions take place each year?

Death sentences

Amnesty International recorded at least 2,087 in 46 countries in 2024. At least 28,085 people were known to be under sentence of death globally at the end of 2024.

Executions

Amnesty International recorded at least 1,518 executions in 15 countries in 2024, up by 32% from 2023.

Why should the death penalty be abolished?

The death penalty is irreversible and mistakes happen

Execution is the ultimate, irrevocable punishment: the risk of executing an innocent person can never be eliminated. Since 1973, for example, more than 200 people sent to death row in the USA have later been exonerated or released from death row on grounds of innocence. Others have been executed despite serious doubts about their guilt.

The death penalty does not deter crime

Countries who execute commonly cite the death penalty as a way to deter people from committing crime. This claim has been repeatedly discredited, and there is no evidence that the death penalty is any more effective in reducing crime than life imprisonment.

The death penalty is often used within skewed justice systems

In many cases recorded by Amnesty International, people were executed after being convicted in grossly unfair trials, on the basis of torture-tainted evidence and with inadequate legal representation. In some countries death sentences are imposed as the mandatory punishment for certain offences, meaning that judges are not able to consider the circumstances of the crime or of the defendant before sentencing.

The death penalty is discriminatory

The weight of the death penalty is disproportionally carried by those with less advantaged socio-economic backgrounds or belonging to a racial, ethnic or religious minority. This includes having limited access to legal representation, for example, or being at greater disadvantage in their experience of the criminal justice system.

The death penalty is used as a political tool

The authorities in some countries, for example Iran and Saudi Arabia, use the death penalty to punish political opponents or quash dissent.

Case Study: Taking a stand against the death penalty

It’s critical to act because every two months the state executes someone else. It’s an issue of life and death.

TJ Riggs

Twenty-year-old TJ Riggs is a student at Samford University and Amnesty International’s Death Penalty Abolition Coordinator in Alabama. He is passionate about fighting for those on death row, racial justice in the US state and the power of letter writing.

TJ has been campaigning on behalf of Rocky Myers, a Black man with an intellectual disability, who was under sentence of death for murder, despite no evidence directly linking him to the crime scene and the retracted statement of a key witness. The judge imposed a death sentence against the jury’s wishes. He was later abandoned by his lawyer, missing key deadlines to appeal for review at federal level. Racism and socio-economic bias affected proceedings against him.

“In my freshman year of college at Samford University, I was tasked with taking over our chapter of Amnesty International. Student groups do all sorts of different activism. I really got involved and plugged into the Alabama death penalty network. After that initial year of being president of the student chapter, I was asked to apply and serve in the role of Amnesty’s Alabama State Death Penalty Abolition Coordinator.

Alabama is in a uniquely bad state for executions, especially recently in terms of both legislation and in terms of process. There are things happening in this state that weren’t happening in other states, and Alabama is changing the norm on capital punishment in a way that unfortunately is being modelled by other state governments. It’s critical to act because every two months the state executes someone else. It’s an issue of life and death.

However, I firmly believe that change is possible. One of the best parts about the job is how well connected and organized Alabama death penalty activism is. There are a lot of organizations in the state that are really dedicated to fighting the death penalty and to fighting Alabama’s long history of racial injustice, specifically when it comes to how the justice system operates in terms of the death penalty.

For those who want to support Amnesty’s campaign to end the death penalty, write a letter to someone on death row. Write a letter to our government. I’ve written countless letters at this point, and I think a lot of people in this state have.”

What is Amnesty International doing to abolish the death penalty?

For over 45 years, Amnesty International has been campaigning to abolish the death penalty around the world.

Amnesty International monitors its use by all states to expose and hold to account governments that continue to use the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. We publish a report annually, reporting figures and analysing trends for each country. Amnesty International’s latest report, Death Sentences and Executions 2024, was released in April 2025.

The organization’s work to oppose the death penalty takes many forms, including targeted, advocacy and campaign based projects in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia-Pacific, Americas and Europe and Central Asia , and Middle East and North Africa regions; strengthening national and international standards against its use, including by supporting the successful adoption of resolutions by the UN General Assembly on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty; and applying pressure on behalf of people facing imminent execution. We also support actions and work by the abolitionist movement, at national, regional and global level.

When Amnesty International started its work in 1977, only 16 countries had totally abolished the death penalty. Today, that number has risen to 113 – more than half the world’s countries. More than two-thirds are abolitionist in law or practice.

Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @  # LIG-2   No  761, HUDCO  FIRST  STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL ,MYSURU – 570017  KARNATAKA  INDIA

India post digipin 

4M6-3LT-9P7P

4M6-3LT-9P73

  

Cell : 91 8970318202 

WhatsApp  91  8970318202

Home page : https://e-inquirer.blogspot.com/  

Contact  :  naag@gmx.com