YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsLaw


March 19, 2012 | By Simon Roughneen and Mark Magnier, Los Angeles Times
  A century-old law allowing up to 15-year prison sentences for those offending Thailand'sKing Bhumibol Adulyadej has sparked controversy and calls for change as its use has increased. Many who support the lese-majeste statute say it is necessary to uphold the dignity of a king they portray as enlightened and selfless, transcending raucous, corruption-prone Thai politics. Others say the 1908 law meaning "injured majesty," with ancient roots that made it a crime to offend a reigning monarch, undercuts free expression and has no place in modern times.
November 4, 2013 | By Molly Hennessy-Fiske
HOUSTON -- Planned Parenthood and others opponents of new Texas abortion restrictions have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate an injunction blocking portions of the law concerning doctors' admitting privileges. The appeal was filed with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who gave state officials until next Tuesday to file a response before he rules. Scalia could rule on the injunction himself or refer the issue to the full court. Opponents said Monday that because of the new restrictions, a third of the state's licensed health centers have had to stop providing abortion services, including at least 14 providers, which will restrict abortion access to about 20,000 women annually.
March 25, 2012 | By Tina Susman and Molly Hennessy-Fiske, Los Angeles Times
It has been called "obscene," "stupid" and the "right-to-commit-murder law. " It has also been credited with protecting people like Sarah McKinley, a young widow who killed a knife-wielding man after he broke into her Oklahoma home. Opinions about so-called "stand your ground" legislation - at the center of the Trayvon Martin killing in Sanford, Fla. - are as vastly different as the cases in which it has been invoked since Florida in 2005 became the first state to adopt such a statute.
January 21, 2000
Re "Unofficially He's a Good Citizen; Legally He's Out," Dec. 17: Columnist Dana Parsons doesn't seem to understand the reasons why we should obey the law. Yes, Walter Hernandez was a good citizen. So was Sara Jane Olson. But they were both breaking the law. It is true that Hernandez didn't try to blow up any police patrol cars, but he was breaking the law. He should not have done so. Now he will get a new chance. Most illegal immigrants are good "citizens" who don't do anything more than work and go to school.
December 6, 1992
"A Question of Conviction" was frightening. As a longtime supporter of capital punishment, I could have found it easy to change my position. Perhaps a law should be enacted to provide that anyone whose actions--or lack of action--result in the conviction and execution of a person who turns out to have been innocent be subject to similar execution. WARREN F. JONES Glendale
June 26, 1985
Your editorial (June 13), "Following the Law," justified the murder-case reversals by the California Supreme Court, using the argument that the rules must be followed. As evidenced by the fact that the court had to reverse previous interpretations of the law by experienced judges on a lower level, the rules that you allude to are not as clear-cut as you would have us believe. For that matter, even the great philosopher Plato had difficulty defining the concept of justice itself. The four cases cited in your editorial were not all unanimous decisions, and, as usual, the justices aligned themselves as to their respective positions on the death penalty.
June 5, 2007
Re "Life vs. the law," editorial, May 31 The Times' editorial board reveals itself as the judicial-activist adherent I'd long suspected it was. But much worse, as a loather of language. Irrespective of the merits of this particular law, "180 days" means 180 days. Imprecision in language and communication is a regrettable reality, not something to be championed in service of a perceived social benefit. And your apparent disdain that "Congress is left to act" speaks volumes. Wasn't there something about the distinction between enacting and interpreting law?
June 19, 2013 | By Anthony York
SACRAMENTO - Gov. Jerry Brown indicated that he would support protecting public access to government records in a constitutional amendment to be voted on next fall, but still supports temporarily weakening the law that ensures public access to official documents. Brown's comments, which came in a statement released Wednesday evening, capped a wild day at the state Capitol, which had lawmakers scrambling to cope with the fallout of last week's vote to water down the law.  At Brown's urging, both houses approved a measure making local compliance with part of the state's public records laws optional.
Los Angeles Times Articles