在案例研究中，当康德所描述的尊严被考虑进去时，那么犯了罪的Bayley和Steven就像死去的受害者Jill和Sarah一样是理性的存在。他们都是理性的人，知道做什么和不做什么，这使他们在道德上受到约束。此外，Bayley和Steven没有权利对Jill和Sarah造成伤害，因为他们也有生存的权利，这是犯罪者不道德的行为(McDonnell & Farrell, 2012)。贝利和史蒂文应该尊重吉尔和萨拉的理性，而不是把他们当作满足于自己不道德行为的手段。贝利和史蒂文的这种行为是完全不道德的，它要求采取行动来抑制这种行为，在这种行为中，人类被用作达到目的的手段，而不是目的。
The first perspective indicates that the criminals must be punished severely and adequately in doing immoral activities as considered by the society. When such potentially dangerous criminals are left open in the community, it is a threat to the dignity of the society, and the upright and moral citizens are endangered as their safety is being compromised on the release of such criminals. There seems to be an ethical dilemma here because the imprisonment of offenders beyond the limit of their remaining inside is unethical. And on other hand it is also necessary to safeguard the society and not leave open such dangerous criminals who could potentially make a re-offense on any one.
The great philosopher Kant identifies and accepts that human beings have an intrinsic worth known as ‘dignity’ which makes hem priceless above all others things (Rachels, 1986). Kant agrees that human beings are rational animals and have the ability of making their own decision and deciding their own good by the actions they perform. Again, morality explained by Kant is the ultimate principle from which all the summing up of all the duties and responsibilities are derived. One of the duties of a moral human is to respect others and not cause any physical harm to anyone for whatsoever reason. According to Kant, one must act as if the action is meant for an end that is human and not use the human as a means for a particular end.
In the case study, when dignity as described by Kant is considered, then Bayley and Steven who are offenders are rational beings as much as the dead victims, Jill and Sarah. They all are rational beings and know what to do and what not to do which makes them morally bound. Further, Bayley and Steven has no right of causing harm to Jill and Sarah as they also have the right to live and it is an immoral behaviour on the part of the offenders (McDonnell & Farrell, 2012). Bayley and Steven ought to have respected the rationality of Jill and Sarah and not used them as a means to the end of feeling satisfied of their immoral behaviour. This particular conduct of Bayley and Steven is completely immoral and calls for an action which suppresses such conduct where humans are used as a means to an end rather than an end in them.
Social attitudes and norms are formed after realising the potential worth and threat of an action. In addition, the contention that offenders must be adequately punished for their offense is derived from the events of repeat offense and continuous threat that the society has to bear in being restricted for their liberty. The social attitude of human dignity is enhancing in a society which is getting smaller and more combined rather than dispersed and there is becoming a broader web of considering human dignity in all civilisations reflected in the interactions and communication of varied cultures. Cultural differences play a role in forming a notion of human dignity but it all boils down to the final belief of respecting an individual irrespective of his or her background. Such incidences of repeat offense and innocent killing makes the belief and social attitudes of individuals more against the parole system and reminds the authorities of their responsibility of protecting the lives of innocent citizens.
The perspective justifies the choice of human dignity of individuals because the conduct of Bayley and Steven is immoral and cannot be pardoned because they performed it when they were supposed to recover and build their self-worth by respecting others dignity as well.