Indeed I did. You didn't read it after I posted it.
Here's a recap:
(1) "Substance" would refer to the dirtbag in question dying in prison.
(2) "Symbolism" would refer to the name you assign to the sentence that produces the substantive result - you could call it "20 years" you could call it "life", you could call it "Fred" if it makes people happy.
My posts so far have had the same message: you can call it what you like, as long as he dies in prison.
So, when I say that you can use any name you want as long as he's locked up for life, I am indeed putting the substance over the symbolism.
Your words not mine.
So, when I say that you can use any name you want as long as he's locked up for life, I am indeed putting the substance over the symbolism.
Again your words.
You argue that the sentence should be 20 years not life even though he still dies in prison. Then you state that it doesn't matter what you call it. Make up your mind. If the intent is for him to die in prison, and I can call it what I like, what is the problem with the life sentence. It meets your criteria for substance and you don't care what it is called. So why did you initiate an argument against it (see your words above).