Should Batman just Kill the Joker ?

[The Endless]

I know the world isn't black and white.

But if Batman beats up a cop who shoots someone like the Joker because of some kind of twisted, selfish psychological need... then he's a bad guy.

The Joker deserves to die. No ifs, ands or buts. He is unrepentant, he can't be rehabilitated, he shows no remorse. If there is a scenario where he is holding a child hostage and a police sniper takes him out... Batman then beating up that police sniper or even being angry is him being selfish and the complete opposite of heroic.

Sometimes a heroic sacrifice isn't a physical sacrifice, it can be a psychological one too. Batman, if he is the hero, will have to deal with the fact that Joker is dead.

 

[Oswald]

Then why he doesn't let Jason Todd kill the Joker in the Under the Hood arch? He isn't a cop but has all the right of the world to do it, given the terrible pain the Joker inflicted him. Why Batman saves the Joker? I'll answer, cause he is against ANY kind of killing. That scene of that comic proves I'm right, and proves he would do exactly the same if a cop/soldier kills somebody (and it's difficult to find somebody who deserves more be killed than the Joker).

 

[The Endless]

Or maybe because it's Jason Todd, someone he is close to, well used to be close to. Who he at one point saw as a son who he trained to not kill.

If he's against any type of killing in any circumstance, he's a self righteous fool blinded by his own black and white ideals, who needs to get over himself. An anti-Rorschach, so to speak.

 

[Oswald]

Or maybe because it's Jason Todd, someone he is close to, well used to be close to. Who he at one point saw as a son who he trained to not kill.

So? By that point of the story Jason had killed dozens of persons, and I'm sure none of them deserved dying as much as the Joker, then what's the difference? Ah, perhaps the difference is Batman was present and COULD save the victim (in this case, the Joker), so he saved him.

If he's against any type of killing in any circumstance, he's a self righteous fool blinded by his own black and white ideals, who needs to get over himself. An anti-Rorschach, so to speak.

And that's exactly what Batman is, a lunatic of heroism. In the comic Cacophony a villain stabs the Joker in the heart in presence of Batman, and instead of chase him Batman opts to carry the Joker to a hospital and save his life. How can you explain this? I'm keen to know how he can still be a hero after that...

 

[The Endless]

Yea he was present in that example. I'm sure he'd stop Jason if he could in the other cases.

But that is extremism. Extremism either way is not a good thing. I don't think Batman has been presented as an extremist consistently enough to say that is the definitive take. He has been in a few stories, like Cacophony, but that doesn't mean every version of Batman is like that.

I understand if you like that take, and whilst that portrayal is valid, it's certainly not the definitive version of Batman.

For me, Batman wouldn't beat up a cop or soldier who has had to kill someone out of necessity. Especially not the Joker.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Oswald, I will disagree with you about Batman needing Joker, the closest thing to show that is the first Burton movie, and it ended with Batman saying "I will help more" after he killed the Joker

In comics Joker first appeared in the second year for Batman, at least I'm going by Batman Year One for that reference
In classic comics Joker appeared after maybe a couple of dozens of stories, and even after he was apprehended Batman continued his mission
In Death in the Family Batman went in violently yo kill ambassador Joker, and kept going with his quests, the reason he went suicidal and reckless after that is not because he needed Joker, but because he blames himself for the death of Jason Todd. Tim Drake coming made him more rational again

Batman tried to kill Joker on different occasions, he killed him more than once, and it got retconned every time, but after each kill of Joker Batman went on with his quest, and that -as some already said- is because he sells

As for "Batman quitting will force Joker to quit", basing the answer on the Dark Knight Returns; it will, but the rest of Gotham's gangs will make the mess and chaos Batman worked hard to put in order, or push back so they won't do all the damage they can do

.................................

Should Batman kill Joker? Yes, he should, if not him then a cop in the line of duty should shoot him out of necessity, this way he will be considered a hero instead of getting hunted, cause as Batmannerism already said, seeing someone in a uniform or with a badge somehow makes it easier to accept
I remember watching Lethal Weapon 1 last year, and my brother asked "If a superhero does it, he's hunted. This guy does it, no one says a thing. Why?"
And the dude shot a mad shooting maniac, who Gordon himself could subdue without resorting to arm use (and the addition of stupidity induced in the head of the shooter), no one in the story complained

 

[The Endless]

The thing is, Batman may be a force for good, but he's still a vigilante operating outside anyone elses rules. He has no one to answer to but himself. That's why we accept cops or soldiers killing, but not him.

If a cop or soldier is found to have unlawfully killed someone, they are investigated and put on trial. If Batman does something shady, he doesn't have to deal with any of that.

 

[Oswald]

How many times Batman has killed the Joker, apart from The Dark Knight Returns?

 

[Spider-Aziz]

In the first 4 issues of Batman he let Joker dies, it happened a few times Batman knew Joker would return, but he just lets him die
In Death in the Family he leaves injured Joker in a helicopter ready for his doom, Batman exists and the helicopter explodes

There are definitely more moments to find, and I'm guessing the Killing Joke -as The Joker already said- potentially ends with Batman snapping Joker's neck, Batman's opening monologue in that story is about how the feud between him and Joker will end with the death of one of them

 

[BlueLightning]

Batman didn't kill the Joker on TDKR. He just beat him to a pulp, and was on the verge of doing it. The Joker expected that, and when Batman failed to kill him, he snapped his own neck.

The ending of the Killing Joke doesn't suggest that Batman killed the Joker. In fact it would defeat the purpose of the promise he made to Gordon before. "Show him that our way works". The ending joke that makes both laugh only says brilliantly that the Joker sees Batman as crazy as he is. A cripple can't help another cripple. Batman understands that he can't change his views, so he shares a laugh with him.

But, the fact that the Joker in that story sees Batman as crazy as he is, doesn't mean that is true.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Only the state can give people permission to kill.

Police in the line of duty. Soldiers during war. The death penalty.

If Batman kills, he does so outside of the law and he will be considered a murderous criminal.

 

[Oswald]

But, the fact that the Joker in that story sees Batman as crazy as he is, doesn't mean that is true.

I think it's true, otherwise why would Batman laugh? What he's doing is supposedly serious, catching a criminal after he damaged a father and a daughter, but he laughs, because he understands his own behaviour is as crazy as the Joker's, but in the direction of order (hurting criminals) instead of the direction of chaos (hurting and killing people).

Batman didn't kill the Joker on TDKR. He just beat him to a pulp, and was on the verge of doing it. The Joker expected that, and when Batman failed to kill him, he snapped his own neck.

I've always thought that even Frank Miller's Batman had aversion of killing, so he broke the Joker's neck in order to leave him tetraplegic, but not kill him.

 

[Shikamaru]

People are forgetting the only reason Joker keeps breaking every Tuesday is because that's how the superhero universes are. It's how they maintain a serialized format with different takes and updates on characters. If it was the real world, Joker would be imprisoned for life and Arkham would be shut down due to its poor track record. Maybe he'll break out once or twice at best, assuming he gets lucky, but he wouldn't be the escape artist the comics make it out to be.

Even if Bats kills him, how long will a character with his popularity stay dead for? Realistically speaking, not very long. What then? Does Batman kill him again? Do people start arguing in circles over why Batman doesn't do this or that to make sure he stays dead because "he keeps coming back"?

 

[shauner111]

Not to bring that back to Nolan Shika, but that's why i enjoyed the idea that Joker rots in Arkham forever in that universe instead of breaking out time and time again.

How many times Batman has killed the Joker, apart from The Dark Knight Returns?

Batman didn't kill Joker in TDKR.

 

[BlueLightning]

I think it's true, otherwise why would Batman laugh? What he's doing is supposedly serious, catching a criminal after he damaged a father and a daughter, but he laughs, because he understands his own behaviour is as crazy as the Joker's, but in the direction of order (hurting criminals) instead of the direction of chaos (hurting and killing people).

Because he realized that trying to help the Joker was ridiculous. The Joker just made his point that he believes that Batman cannot save him, that his mission is pointless, that what he believes is a joke. Batman can't convince him otherwise, the Joker's soul is lost by his own hand. He is irredeemable and beyond saving. Batman can't save him because ultimately for the Joker, Batman is just as crazy as he is.

He is wrong of course, but Batman has a realization of this truth, and the opportunity to share a moment of humanity, perhaps the only moment he would have with this monster he tried to help. So he laughs.

That's the point of his visit to Arkham. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Batman always tries to help every villain he has. This is perhaps the only instance in which Batman reaches the Joker into trying to rehabilitate him.

There is some poetry in which Arkham Asylum is not a prison per se, but a place in which the purpose is to help the mentally ill. Now, on practice it is entirely different. The place if full of corrupt officers and doctors, the same as the government and the police, and going back to one of the points I made before, giving Batman a reason to exist.

Also, if you pay attention to the ending the final panels are raindrops in the ground fading in, just as the beginning is the same but fading out. Its visual poetry, one that reaches meta-levels of reading. Perhaps the confrontations they do are cyclical, because of the nature of the many mediums which the characters inhabit. They are destined to do this forever.

 

[B:TAS]

Only the state can give people permission to kill.

Police in the line of duty. Soldiers during war. The death penalty.

If Batman kills, he does so outside of the law and he will be considered a murderous criminal.

You can legally kill someone in self defense, even as a civilian.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

You can legally kill someone in self defense, even as a civilian.

And to be fair, I doubt there's a jury in Gotham that would convict Batman for killing the Joker, given all who the clown's already killed and how he'll obviously kill so many more. In fact I'd say most of the Gotham judges would refuse to preside over the case, unless they were really anti-vigilante.

Frankly, I find the whole "righteous indignation" over killing the Joker thing to be very unrealistic in the comics. Whatever Batman's feeling on it is, it would be rediculous if anyone in the city threw a fit over Batman killing the Joker. People aren't like that at all. If there was someone in reality that was as evil and murderous as the Joker, people would cheer whoever offed him, and whoever took a stance against the action would be booed.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

And to be fair, I doubt there's a jury in Gotham that would convict Batman for killing the Joker, given all who the clown's already killed and how he'll obviously kill so many more. In fact I'd say most of the Gotham judges would refuse to preside over the case, unless they were really anti-vigilante.

As someone who read Trial of The Flash, I think maybe you'd be surprised and see Batman hunted to be put to trial for killing the clown

 

[Goopy Snake]

Can you explain me how Batman cares about people in Gotham? And I mean rationally, letting aside all the superhero paraphernalia that envolves him.

I think Batman cares about the people in Gotham. If he didn't care you'd see a lot more collateral damage.

I just think he cares about putting on a costume and beating the crap out of people a whole lot more.

Bruce Wayne could pepper Gotham with teen reform centers and job programs. That money is instead invested in things like shark repellent Bat Spray.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I'm pretty sure Bruce Wayne pours a lot of effort and money in charities and social work, he does his job to make more job opportunities for citizens of Gotham, improve the police force and make better shelters

Of course, he faces obstacles in being the only rich guy in Gotham to be a philanthropist, instead of being a drug lord or any other form of crime boss

 

[Batmannerism]

You can legally kill someone in self defense, even as a civilian.

I'll weigh in on that one, having done advanced Criminal law last year.

B:TAS is completely correct, and what's more in certain circumstances you can kill in defence of another e.g. Joker puts a gun to Robin's head, and tells Bats he's going to shoot on the count of 3, 1....2.... Batman throws a batarang that slits Joker's throat, Joker dies.

Sure, Bats might be charged, but it would be such a clear cut case of self-defence/defence of another that he'd most certainly beat the charge.

If you don't believe me, read this :

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/PEN/ONE/C/35/35.15

assuming that Gotham city is probably most analogous to New York,
from a legislative point of view.

I used the same logic to defend Superman's killing of Zod in MOS, against people suggesting that he "murdered" Zod. Clearly he didn't, not in a legal sense. ( of course in that situation a few common law defences, like necessity might also apply).

In the same way it would have applied way back in the day when the Flash killed the reverse Flash (the first time) who was about to kill Iris.

The legal defence of self-defence would apply in such a situation. Now if Bats goes out looking for the Joker, and without a "how d'you do?" cuts his giggling head off (which we'd all like to see, I imagine), well that would be murder.


Some of the comments around us all being okay with soldiers and cops killing, well to be honest that has a lot to do with the fact that our culture and government tell us that its okay. We're kind of conditioned to believe that stuff (like murder is wrong, which is important, because if we didn't society would fall apart). Now I personally believe in the death penalty, but at the same time I'm also very wary of statements like this....

Only the state can give people permission to kill.

Police in the line of duty. Soldiers during war. The death penalty.

If Batman kills, he does so outside of the law and he will be considered a murderous criminal.

I'm not saying you're wrong, because technically you're absolutely right. But, the bigger question is whether the state having the sole monopoly on killing is a good thing ? Who knows, it's such a complex question ? I certainly don't know the answer.

However, I agree with this.....

I think Batman cares about the people in Gotham. If he didn't care you'd see a lot more collateral damage.

I just think he cares about putting on a costume and beating the crap out of people a whole lot more.

Bruce Wayne could pepper Gotham with teen reform centers and job programs. That money is instead invested in things like shark repellent Bat Spray.

True ! If Bruce really wanted to reduce crime he'd invest in the city, or get behind a politician who would clean up the corruption. There's a lot he could do, but doesn't do, that's bound to be more effective -and long lasting- than kicking the crap out of a few bad guys.

However, that doesn't make for exciting comic book reading.

It's great that the issue has grown to become about whether Batman should kill, and killing by non-state-sanctioned people. There's not going to be any final answer that will please everyone, but it's cool hearing true Bat-fans sharing their thoughts.

Even if we think it's wrong, sometimes Batman killing someone can be kind of satisfying, from a story point of view like this......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lElU7e2kds

because boy, Zoom had it coming !

 

[Oswald]

Even if we think it's wrong, sometimes Batman killing someone can be kind of satisfying, from a story point of view like this......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lElU7e2kds

because boy, Zoom had it coming !

That's not Bruce, is Thomas Wayne in the alternate universe where the little Bruce died the night of the robbery in the alley.

There is some poetry in which Arkham Asylum is not a prison per se, but a place in which the purpose is to help the mentally ill. Now, on practice it is entirely different. The place if full of corrupt officers and doctors, the same as the government and the police, and going back to one of the points I made before, giving Batman a reason to exist.

I don't understand this... Now James Gordon (the police commissioner) is corrupt?

And about Arkham, in the comics I know (Arkham: Living Hell, No Man's Land, even Arkham Asylum) I've never seen the personal, beginning with the director Jeremiah Arkham, being crooked. They do the work with honesty and care about the patients, in No Man's Land Jeremiah even let them free when the government isolates Gotham, so they don't die of starvation. If that's not being upright I don't know what is.

 

[Goopy Snake]

Sure, Bats might be charged, but it would be such a clear cut case of self-defence/defence of another that he'd most certainly beat the charge.

Beating the charge would require turning himself in, revealing his identity, and possibly spending a night or two in jail.

If you don't believe me, read this :

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/PEN/ONE/C/35/35.15

assuming that Gotham city is probably most analogous to New York,
from a legislative point of view.

I like to think of Gotham as Chicago, with all the corruption and everything.

I used the same logic to defend Superman's killing of Zod in MOS, against people suggesting that he "murdered" Zod. Clearly he didn't, not in a legal sense. ( of course in that situation a few common law defences, like necessity might also apply).

I assert that to NOT kill Zod would have been murder, or at least depraved indifference.



If I were an established writer, I would be petitioning all over the place to do a story about Arkham as a legitimate mental health facility. Obviously a comic book is not going to focus on Arkham's successes, so who's to say people don't get positive and effective treatment there all the time?

 

[BlueLightning]

True ! If Bruce really wanted to reduce crime he'd invest in the city, or get behind a politician who would clean up the corruption. There's a lot he could do, but doesn't do, that's bound to be more effective -and long lasting- than kicking the crap out of a few bad guys.

However, that doesn't make for exciting comic book reading.

Batmannerism, you make a lot of good reasonable points., thanks for sharing the legal background about the definition of murder. I read your post about the MOS situation. I don't like the decision the filmmakers took on that, (and many others), but it is good for understanding the situation that not many of us have knowledge in that legal area.

However, we do have evidence that Bruce does good things in Gotham as a philantropist. The point of fundraising Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight, for example, is an attempt to bring a legitimate source of order in the system. Also, in Rises we learn that Bruce was helping orphanages with the Wayne Foundation. Also one of the first things he does as Batman is to find people he can trust, honest people like James Gordon. He isn't there to replace the police, he is trying to repair this broken city and giving it back to the people of Gotham.

There is for example the episode "Old Wounds" in which we learn that a disturbed Dick Grayson quits being Robin because of the harshness of Batman methods on a criminal he threatened in front of his family for working for the Joker, only to learn that Batman gave that man a job for Wayne Enterprises. There is a similar case on Batman: Noël. Also we must not forget that in the comics there is the branch of Wayne Foundation in Wayne Enterprises, the Thomas Wayne Foundation that helps in the healthcare area and the Martha Wayne Foundation that supports a variety of institutions like orphanages and schools.

So there are a lot of examples like that, but we tend to forget those because more often than not the emphasis is that Gotham is a corrupt town, and well, as you mention, Batman punching the Riddler on a weekly basis is more entertaining.

I don't understand this... Now James Gordon (the police commissioner) is corrupt?

And about Arkham, in the comics I know (Arkham: Living Hell, No Man's Land, even Arkham Asylum) I've never seen the personal, beginning with the director Jeremiah Arkham, being crooked. They do the work with honesty and care about the patients, in No Man's Land Jeremiah even let them free when the government isolates Gotham, so they don't die of starvation. If that's not being upright I don't know what is.

You are nitpicking a generalized statement. It is obvious that there are good people in the police, the government and even in Arkham. The Arkham case is worthwhile to reconsider because there are good doctors in there, but there is also a reason that the inmates have the opportunity to escape, for example in the movie "Under the Hood" in which Black Mask bribes some guards in order to unleash the Joker.

 

[Shikamaru]

True ! If Bruce really wanted to reduce crime he'd invest in the city, or get behind a politician who would clean up the corruption. There's a lot he could do, but doesn't do, that's bound to be more effective -and long lasting- than kicking the crap out of a few bad guys.

However, that doesn't make for exciting comic book reading.

I don't believe it's as simple as that. This varies from writer to writer, but generally speaking, Gotham isn't Detroit. It isn't small and bankrupt to the point Detroit is. It's often still a large successful metropolitan city, it just has its crime and corruption problem. Which may seem strange since crime/corruption and decay/bankruptcy are often correlated, but the other way can happen too. It has more in common with (mainly 80's) New York or Chicago in that sense. Both seen as great cities and generate income, but with some crime/corruption issues.

The reason Gotham was so full of crime and corrupt, at least initially, was due to a certain group of people that wanted it to be that way. The Falcones, the Maronis, the mayor, Police Department, and other 1%'ers who were in on it, the Court of Owls (since New 52), etc. Bruce understood those guys couldn't be beaten with money and investments, and they have those assets to certain degrees too. Rather, a symbol of fear to put them in place was needed. It was the one way to "make them afraid", as he says in Year One. Using the same fear they instilled on Gotham, that money can't buy. It's interesting you brought up the idea of Bruce supporting a politician, since he does that in various continuities with Harvey Dent. Unfortunately, even that fails, since Harvey doesn't have the same incorruptible larger-than-life nature Batman does. Thus he can be snapped a lot easier by the elites of Gotham, which was a huge theme in TDK.

You're right that Bruce can do much more with his money than with the symbol of Batman, but only at a certain point - when Batman finishes his job. Unfortunately, that point never comes due to the timing nature of comics. The DC Universe never ages past 5 - 15 years max, so we'll never see Gotham reach that point due to that fact. Also writers can contrive story reasons to prevent Batman from not being necessary anymore. Morrison's run started with Gotham finally being clean and Bruce having to relearn how to be Bruce Wayne, only for certain events to happen and have Gotham messed up again.