What's your point? Do you feel that after serving a sentence for such a crime, the perpetrator should not have a chance at a "normal" life? Should they live the rest of their days continually punished by society for what they did?
If so, should we instead increase the length of the sentence for such a crime? To how long?
We had someone who worked at my company that was convicted for second degree manslaughter for bludgeoning someone to death with a hammer. He was always chill around me but I think companies should have the right to decide whether or not they want to hire people with a record like that.
How do you get manslaughter for that? You can't unintentionally bludgeon someone to death, can you?
I will however say that there is opportunity for multiple interpretations with the little information provided; for example I think bludgeoning someone to death is perfectly acceptable if that person is trying to harm you or your family and a hammer is the nearest available weapon. Your coworker could have been in a similar situation in which self defense was warranted, and that may be why he did not get a murder charge instead.
This sort of nuance is why this issue matters a lot; you could do the right thing and still end up with a charge that severely impacts your ability to get a job, even though you're not actually some kind of violent murderer.
Manslaughter can absolutely be intentional; hence "voluntary manslaughter". It generally needs to be unpremeditated and without active malicious intent, but can be self-defence, "in the heat of passion", etc that cause what would otherwise be a murder charge to be reduced to manslaughter.
There is a big difference between "This person should be imprisoned and completely seperated from society" and "I should have the right to not work with violent people". I have no problem with a convicted murderer being released from prison, but I'm not going to invite them over for dinner.
> "I should have the right to not work with violent people"
You do have that right, because you can switch jobs at will (unlike that person), in case you don't want to work with someone purely due to their past and not something they are doing at your workplace.
I don't think we should be blocking people (who have already paid their dues for the crimes they have committed in the past) from getting a job solely for their past, just because you might be uncomfortable with that.
It isn't like you are trapped, you always have an option to leave. The person who paid their dues to the prison system doesn't have any options if they become unhireable solely due to people's prejudices about their past. And at that point, what other option do they have other than turn their head towards crime again? Rent and bills aren't gonna pay themselves.
Not the best solution, but I don't think that denying someone a job based on your discomfort about their distant past is reasonable at all. Of course, as long as they weren't in-and-out of jail multiple times for the same crimes, because that's an indication that they are likely to re-commit.
That can be a manslaughter or second/first degree murder in some states
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_punishments_for_murder...