Seems a lot of people here are for the idea that Batman should've saved Ra's, but no one seems to care for what would happen afterwards, if he did save Ra's. Once again, how would they prove that Ra's was guilty? When it came to Falcone and his thugs Batman had done his homework and was able to provide ample evidence. When it came to Ra's, however, Batman had less than 20 minutes to realize the details of Ra's plan and stop it from coming to fruition. How seriously could they take a single testimony from Batman? And how likely would it be for Batman to testify? Even if the "corrupt bureaucrats" somehow found Ra's to be guilty and declared him as such, what to do about the League of Shadows which, having infiltrated every level of Gotham's infrastructure, will have a relatively easy time saving their leader? A smart Batman would not let someone like Ra's go, because it would endanger innocents, and he prioritizes their protection more than the protection of criminals.
Maybe some writers should give my Bat-prison idea some serious thought. :P
Ronny Shade said:
No, it's NOT easy. Batman has sworn never to kill. Batman takes promised very seriously. Batman is a protector, not a punisher.
Batman is not stupid.
Batman doesn't want innocents to die or suffer tragedy, which is what happened when his parents got killed. So there's the protector aspect. Again, handing Ra's over to the authorities, after a dangerous attempt at rescuing him from the train (dangerous since Ra's would've fought back at some point), would only result in Ra's getting away with it all, whereafter innocents would be at risk once again. That wouldn't have been a very protective move. Also, is punishing the same as killing to you? I'd say beating up criminals and landing them in jail is a form of punishment.
Also, I'm going by Begins here, not the strict ideal Batman sometimes is very able of upholding in the comics (and again, this wasn't originally part of the character... so, "THE WHOLE POINT"!?).
In Begins, Bruce says that he will not become an executioner. There's a difference between killing someone in the heat of battle and executing someone. Execution takes place after you have captured your enemy. Ra's had not been captured at the end of Begins (for example, Crane was rendered harmless by Batman, who did not kill him, choosing instead to leave him to the police, and evidence was all around the place). It's also worth noting the context in which Bruce said he would not become an executioner. He was told to kill a man of whom he knew nothing, and all he had was the League's word that the man had murdered his neighbour. Remember, Bruce wished for a trial for the man, whereafter Ra's asks "By whom? corrupt bureaucrats?". This elaborates on Bruce's stance. He wants to know the details, and he wants to give people a chance. Knowing this would not be given here, he chose to cause a distraction, hoping this would help the man flee. As a final and important not on this scene, Bruce did not say that he would never kill someone, or never let someone die.
Even though Bruce now viewed "Ducard" as a disillusioned member of a crazy warband, he gave him a chance by saving his life. Later, this turned out to be a bad idea. It was revealed the "Ducard" was actually Ra's al Ghul, and that he was just about to go through with a terrorist attack that would presumably lead to the death and destruction of Gotham and its citizens. Batman tried to talk him out of it, but Ra's was clearly beyond "redemption". So, Batman experienced first-hand how poorly Ra's handled his second chance - his "trial", given to him by Batman. "As a symbol, I can be incorruptible..."
This goes with the more realistic approach to Batman. He gave the villain enough chances, and it did not work out. He did not go Punisher-style on Ra's and shoot him on sight.
(BTW, Ra's was the one that destroyed the controls in the train. Batman was trying to stop the train, not set up a death trap for Ra's.)
