I think it is an interesting question Jerry.
I'll have a go at it, from my POW.

First of all, I believe that punishments should be, and are, closely connected to intent. Now, driving under the influence and harning someone is, to my belief, never intentional. Negligence (sp?) is a more proper classification. If you add to that the documented effects of alcohol on humans in the respect of ability to estimate risks, self judgement and general feeling of invincability and profficency I have to say that intent is out of the pictue.

Unless you realize that most people have the ablitity to reason. That means that if you prior to your first order of alcohol realize that you are going to drive home afterwards, and you despite of this ignore the risk, you have in fact an intent to be negligent.

In all, I think drunk drivers should be treated like anyone who act against better knowing. This category includes teenagers unable to hold back the urge to demolish property (graffiti or busting things up in general), parents who resort to any form of abuse of their children (spanking, house arrests) or any form of theft (file-sharing, shoplifting).
The effects of these petty crimes, as you may see them, are admittedly not as severe as actually killing someone, but I belive that the intention of the acts are characteristically the same. You know, in the back of your head, that what you are doing is wrong, but you don't reckon that anybody will get hurt by your acts.

Drunk driving has another aspect to it. The one of general acceptance. It is hard to catch all drunk drivers by the use of the police, but it is easy to spot the offence since alcohol is such a social drug. If anyone suspecting a DUI in progress or about to happen would report the offence or act to prevent it I think you could really reduce the problem. This is naturally a euforic scenario, I realize the problem of depending on other drunkards to be able to be reasonable (without resulting to violent acts).

I don't know how to jodge on this really. I think it is hard to eliminate drunk driving by harder punshments. I think the way to treat the problem is by making any one who allows it to happen an accomplice (sp?). But then that in turn would incriminate alot of people and probably lead to a very un-american society were every act including alcohol or driving would be supervised by some governmet organ (and that would cost alot, not to mention anger alot of people).

I think you should sentance a drunk driver, whether (s)he killed some one or simply got caught in a random breath-control, the same cause they are guilty of the same offence, negligence. If the punshment should be imprisonment or loss of drivers licens with parol or therapy I don't know. What ever has the best effect I guess.