William Bolton immediately said, “And in the law regarding voluntary surrender, there is another clause: exemption from the crime that caused it.”

Edward Foster and Robert Clark both recited at the same time, “Exemption from the crime that caused it?”

Neither of them could recall it for the moment. Robert Clark wanted to look for the book to check, but felt it would be embarrassing—he, a dignified registrar, being corrected by a convict who had just been released from prison.

But Edward Foster didn’t care about such things. He immediately ordered David Harris to bring the “Song Code of Criminal Law,” flipped through it, and indeed found such a clause.

However, this clause was not specifically listed, but rather included in the explanation of the regulations on voluntary surrender.

That’s why even the registrar Robert Clark hadn’t thought of it at the time.

The original text reads: “Those who confess to causing injury or death may be exempted from the crime that caused it, but still punished for the actual injury or death.” It further explains: “If someone injures or kills another due to theft, or accidentally injures or kills the property owner and then confesses, the theft charge is exempted, but the charge for injury or death still applies.”

Meticulous!

Very meticulous!

Edward Foster looked at this Michael Bolton with newfound respect and nodded, “That’s right, that’s the clause.”

William Bolton said, “According to this law, whenever someone injures another in the course of theft and then confesses, the theft charge is exempted, and only the injury charge is pursued.”

“Exactly!”

Edward Foster nodded.

What does it mean to be exempt from the crime that caused it? Actually, it’s very simple. For example, if you commit burglary and, upon being discovered, end up injuring someone, but your original intent was theft, not injury—in other words, the injury was caused by the theft—then if you confess, the law will only pursue the injury charge and not the theft charge.

This is what is meant by exemption from the crime that caused it.

If it’s both theft and injury, the sentence is death. But if only the injury is pursued, then the punishment depends on the circumstances of the injury, and generally, it won’t be a death sentence.

This is very reasonable. If the law were not set up this way, it would lead to situations where, once injury occurs during theft, the perpetrator would simply kill the victim to silence them, since the outcome would be death anyway.

If you give them a way out, it might prevent harm to innocents, or even allow the injured to receive timely help.

William Bolton immediately said, “According to our dynasty’s laws, the crime of theft and murder is more serious than the crime of murder alone. Therefore, it can be inferred that this law also applies to the crime of murder. Thus, in the case of John, who confessed, this law should also apply. Since John injured someone in the course of murder, according to the exemption from the crime that caused it, the murder charge should be exempted, and John should be sentenced for the injury.”

The first half of the original text, “Those who confess to causing injury or death may be exempted from the crime that caused it, but still punished for the actual injury or death.”

This is the regulation.

The second half, “If someone injures or kills another due to theft, or accidentally injures or kills the property owner and then confesses, the theft charge is exempted, but the charge for injury or death still applies.”

This is an explanatory example.

It does not mean that exemption from the crime that caused it applies only to theft and murder.

William Bolton’s reasoning is correct.

But Robert Clark was dumbfounded.

Is this really possible?

“Nonsense!”

Robert Clark shouted angrily, “This is utter nonsense! You just said that in the case of theft and injury, exemption from the crime that caused it is possible because theft is a lesser crime than injury, so the theft charge is exempted and only the injury charge is pursued. But now you’re turning things upside down—murder is a more serious crime than injury, so how can the murder charge be exempted and only the injury charge pursued? If we judged like this, where would justice be?”

William Bolton laughed, “But that’s not what you officials said earlier.”

Robert Clark was puzzled, “I didn’t say anything earlier.”

William Bolton said, “Earlier, I appealed to emotion and reason, saying that I suffered three months of wrongful imprisonment for no reason and deserved some compensation. Isn’t that reasonable and just? But you two officials insisted that the authorities were just following the law, so I could only accept my bad luck, since that’s what the law says.

But now, when I argue according to the law, since the law states that those who confess can be exempted from the crime that caused it, then John, who injured someone in the course of murder, should be exempted from the murder charge. Yet the registrar now refutes me on the grounds of justice.

So I must ask, which comes first—justice or the law?”

Robert Clark was speechless.

These two matters seemed completely unrelated, but after William Bolton’s sophistry, they were forcibly linked as one.

Now that the truth is out, no one can deny that William Bolton did indeed spend three months in wrongful imprisonment. He had nothing to do with the case and didn’t even know John. Even from the perspective of justice, he deserves some compensation.

But the authorities were just following the law, as prescribed, so they can’t be blamed.

However, you can’t have double standards.

So it turns out his previous complaint against the official was just laying the groundwork for this case! Edward Foster suddenly realized, glanced at the embarrassed Robert Clark beside him, and spoke up to help: “Theft and murder are both crimes, but what is ‘premeditation’? According to your logic, even just thinking about someone’s death is a crime. Our dynasty has no such law.”

Exemption from the crime that caused it is simply an explanation allowing the judge to decide whether the two crimes should be combined.

But according to William Bolton’s argument, premeditation and murder must be separated—the idea or intent to murder is one crime, and the act of murder is another.

But the problem is, the idea of murder is not a crime. Many people shout, ‘I’m going to kill you!’ At that moment, the person certainly has the thought of murder, but that’s not a crime—it’s just empty talk.