The point is more about whether it is acceptable to be cruel or inhumane toward an animal more so than the end purpose for which we are treating an animal with human qualities which is being claimed to invalidate this better treatment. Once it's dead I'm not sure the animal cares and it becomes an issue of satisfying nutrition and consumer tastes. With humans the issue is a bit more muddy, but we still have some exceptions on cannibalism in the manner of a "break open glass" case. If we can eat humans out of necessity but still treat them fairly and decently in life, I don't see why the same could not apply to animals that we consume more freely.

Sweeping generalizations like yours do not make for good debate material.

Certainly the odds of an accident of some kind go up when you get behind the wheel of a car drunk. However there's evidence that texting on a cell phone causes the same effect. While we do have some state laws going up against it, I don't hear anybody using the language of "death penalty" for that either. The reason is that it is an involuntary act that results in death. We don't put criminals to death for involuntary behavior. It be the same as executing the corporate executive for selling the car to someone who later drove drunk. Accidents of fate are not a good case for lethal response by society.