一项研究发现，与无条件释放或没有假释进入社区的罪犯相比，假释罪犯再次犯罪的时间更长(Wan, Poynton, Doorn & Weatherburn, 2014)。这意味着那些被假释的人已经对具体的行为做出了承诺，并且避免了犯罪，他们更有可能在没有犯罪的情况下继续服刑。这一观点基本上是当局为受害者的康复所寻求的。然而，这并不是贝利和史蒂文的结果。
According to the authorities, a parole system allows a successful and gradual reintegration of the offender into the community and expects that the offender develops his own self-worth and dignity which reduced the chance of a repeat offense. This is because the entire focus of parole is to rehabilitation of the offender.
It was found in a research that offenders released on parole took longer to commit another offense when compared with offenders who were released unconditionally or without parole into the community (Wan, Poynton, Doorn & Weatherburn, 2014). This implies that those who are on parole have made a commitment for specific conduct and avoiding an offense are more likely to stay without an offense. This view is fundamentally what is sought after by the rehabilitation of victims by the authorities. However, it was not the result in case of Bayley and Steven.
Kaufman (2013) talks about the difference between retribution and revenge, where retribution is aimed at delivering justice to the victim and revenge is aimed at making the offender suffer for his or her deeds. In such a scenario, human dignity is either associated with revenge or retribution and the consequences are what the action is selected of the two. If revenge is selected and aimed at making the offender suffer, the context and the circumstances might have to be studied before declaring it as moral. Similarly, it is the same with retribution which only focuses on providing justice through the legal system of the country. Human dignity as described by Kant is again associated with the self-worth of the individual. In case of Bayley and Steven, it is seen that they are repeat offenders and they have breached the trust of the authorities that was placed on them while releasing them on parole. This is a serious breach and instead of gaining self-worth and integrating in the community as a respectable citizen, the offenders have denied themselves a dignified life. Looking at Kant’s angle and Kaufman’s idea of dignity, the offenders must be punished and the decision rests in selecting either revenge or retribution.
Social norms of the society forms after thorough investigation and measuring the pros and cons of a particular action which is then regarded as a universally moral one and it is broadly considered to be the ideal choice of a human in all circumstances. The perspective that offenders must be given a chance to integrate again in the community and lead a dignified life is a novel thought and is reflecting the retributive insight of the authorities. The authorities try to curb the menace of offense by changing the thought process for the better rather than taking revenge and making them suffer. The association with revenge or retribution is either moral or immoral because every situation is contextual and has a different message; hence the decision about its morality is not universally the same.
The perspective justifies the actions of the authorities because they have seen improvements in the lives of the offenders and releasing them on parole is a more retributive action than a revengeful one. This action is focussed on forming a tolerant society which learns to accept offenders as humans and honour them their dignity when they realise their self-worth and change their mind-set. The action is legitimate in specific cases, but the threat to society remains and is unpredictable as seen in the case of Jill and Sarah who lost their lives for no reason of theirs.