Sentencing for the following crimes.

[Alcon]

4.  Vehicular manslaughter (under the influence)
Death

Lord, why?

[Alcon]

4.  Vehicular manslaughter (under the influence)
Death

Lord, why?

DUI should be a felony, and a homocide that results from a felony should receive the death penalty,

Isn't the point of the death penalty for punishment when no deterrent is possible?

Even if it legally adds up, doesn't it seem unnecessary?

[Alcon]

No one is ever forced to drink and drive.  Such people have chosen to act in a reckless manner before they've taken the first drink if they haven't provided for how they will get home without driving themselves.

That's not really answering my question.

[Alcon]

How so?  Clearly the fact that if you f'up and kill somone while drinking and driving should act as a deterent to drinking and driving.  People who intenionally place themselves in a situation where they cannot think straight should be held just as responsible for the forseeable consequences of their actions as anyone else.  If they were hopefully they'd be more responsible.  I could see an exception to the death penalty for someone who got drunk at home and then while drunk decided to go for a drive and killed someone else as a result, since one could argue that the situation of drinking and driving was not forseeable before the drinking began.

What is the use of killing them, considering that they are not likely to re-offend in most cases?  And, if we make the distinction for drinking beginning at home, why not make the distinction for DUIs in general?

[Alcon]

1.  Woman living in poverty steals a loaf of bread to feed her family 1 year

3.  Vehicular Manslaughter (unintentional) 2 years

...?

[Alcon]

Considering that DUI has a high recidivism rate, saying they are not likely to re-offend is absurd.  You seem to be arging that the penalty for a DUI should be the same regardless of whether no damage occurred or the drunk kills a family of four.

DUI might, but does vehicular manslaughter during a DUI?

And what is giving you the impression highlighted in your second sentence?

Because a person who drives to someplace else and then drinks can be presumed to have made while sober the premeditated decision to drive after drinking.  The same is unlikely to be the case for a person who drinks at home.  The inability to show premeditation for the act of driving after drinking that caused the death is why a lesser penalty would be appropriate in such cases.

I suppose that's true, but I doubt many people set out thinking, "hey, I'm going to drive drunk tonight."  Not that I have much sympathy for those who do.