From a normative perspective:
Why should a student-athlete be punished by his/her team as well as the justice system?
In other words, if a kid missing a team meeting, team punishment is necessary because there's been no criminal/judicial consequence.
On the other hand, you could obviously say that a person who assaults someone may not have the character necessary to remain on the team, and therefore there are some criminal offenses that are so serious that they require expulsion, not as a punishment, but rather as a mode of removing a threat (i.e. someone the team can't trust or rely on).
I don't think a reckless driving or non-aggravated DUI offense falls in the latter category.
So, why not let the judicial system mete out punishment, as it would any other student, and leave team punishment off the table?
In my opinion, team punishment should generally not hurt the team, but rather correct the individual (e.g. individualized physical punishment for missing meetings).
Suspensions should only be brought down when someone's absence actually helps the team by removing a determent, at least until he proves he can be a valuable part of the team again and earns his way back. A simple "offense = 1 game" approach doesn't really get much done, in my opinion.
On an unrelated note: Many U's don't even suspend a player for a game after a drug policy violation:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...onsistency-epitomizes-aq-school-drug-policies