Why Batman Should Kill The Joker

[KilljoyKlown]

Most of my life I've hated Batman for not killing the joker and now I find an article why he should do it. I would like to know what side of the question this forums readers will come down on, should Batman have killed the Joker?

http://bigthink.com/ideas/42595?page=3

 

[cosmictraveler]

Of course not, they make a great good guy VS bad guy team. To many new stories can be done with the joker as the antagonist. Look at how many have already been written about them and how people enjoy thir interactions.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

Of course not, they make a great good guy VS bad guy team. To many new stories can be done with the joker as the antagonist. Look at how many have already been written about them and how people enjoy their interactions.

That's true but besides the point. The joker is a one man wrecking crew against society and not killing him sends the wrong message to young people. They need to know that hurting others will not be tolerated by society. Besides do gooders like Batman just aren't real. Also, I just can't believe in a super hero that will go the extra mile to make sure the villain doesn't get hurt.

 

[cosmictraveler]

That's true but besides the point. The joker is a one man wrecking crew against society and not killing him sends the wrong message to young people. They need to know that hurting others will not be tolerated by society. Besides do gooders like Batman just aren't real. Also, I just can't believe in a super hero that will go the extra mile to make sure the villain doesn't get hurt.

But the joker always gets caught and either put in jail or some other disastrous thing happens to him that stops him from whatever diabolical plot he was trying to hatch. That seems to send a message that whatever anyone does , there's always someone smarter than you are so it isn't worth doing wrong things.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

But the joker always gets caught and either put in jail or some other disastrous thing happens to him that stops him from whatever diabolical plot he was trying to hatch. That seems to send a message that whatever anyone does , there's always someone smarter than you are so it isn't worth doing wrong things.

But every time he's free people get hurt and killed and there's at least a billion dollars in damage left in his wake. Just think of all that and say to yourself it doesn't have to happen anymore, if only Batman would kill him.

 

[Syne]

The message of vigilantism is somewhat tempered by not being homicidal vigilantism.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

The message of vigilantism is somewhat tempered by not being homicidal vigilantism.

But the Joker has a very bad track record and those of us that know him, know he will never change. The only way to be safe from the Joker is to kill him. There is no fail safe way to keep him locked up and if we can't count on Batman to protect and keep us safe, what good is he? The article did state that he could make it look like an accident to preserve his non lethal vigilante status. I can live with that.

 

[ElectricFetus]

If superheros where to murder all their supervillain nemesis then they would quickly run out of things to do. Keeping the supervillain alive is a plot device so that the story can be restarted with yet another diabolical plot. Of course the alternative is that the supervillain comes back to life, or never actually died, or that it was a dream sequence, etc, but the audience is going to notice that special exceptions happen regularly and that would make things dull.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

If superheros where to murder all their supervillain nemesis then they would quickly run out of things to do. Keeping the supervillain alive is a plot device so that the story can be restarted with yet another diabolical plot. Of course the alternative is that the supervillain comes back to life, or never actually died, or that it was a dream sequence, etc, but the audience is going to notice that special exceptions happen regularly and that would make things dull.

Yeah! I know, I have my favorite supervillions and I would hate losing them. I even like the Joker, but for the purpose of this topic I still think Batman should have killed him.

 

[madanthonywayne]

This quote nicely sums up the situation:

“This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. You truly are incorruptible, aren't you? You won't kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness. And I won't kill you because you're just too much fun. I think you and I are destined to do this forever.”​

The author of the article you linked to then makes a sound argument for why the Joker should be killed:

Gothem city would be much safer if the Joker were killed.
The Joker is a clear example of “an unstoppable” force that can be seen to harm. The Joker proves time and again his disregard for law, any semblance of respect for other lives, and his consistent need to create chaos in a methodical way. No prison can hold him, no punishment will effect him, no treatment will cure him. All have been tried, all quiver into dust or, like Harley Quinn, are transformed into another tool for his plans.

A guaranteed way to prevent any more of these horrible crimes is to end the life that creates them. This is a choice to kill, to severe forever the final thread of life, to close the final door to any problems caused by and to the entity in question;
​

Should the Joker be put to death? Certainly. But should Batman do it? No.

Batman would never kill even a supervillain like the Joker, unless it was in self defense. To suggest that he'd not only kill but then cover up the deed is completely contrary to the nature of Batman and would forever change who he is.

Were Batman to give in to his dark side, even to dispense justice towards someone who clearly deserves it like the Joker, he would no longer be the uncorruptable guardian. Indeed, the Joker would likely die happy if Batman killed him knowing that he'd forced Batman to take the first step down the road towards the chaos that he loves and that the next step would be that much easier.

Batman will capture the Joker and turn him over to the proper authorities. It's then up to the state to try him before a jury of his peers and execute him once he's convicted.

The problem for the author is that he opposes the death penalty. Rather than re-evaluate his principles to make room for even extreme cases, he chooses to corrupt the uncorruptable.

 

[ElectricFetus]

IF superheros and supervillains were real I would agree, more so even if the supervillains were just captured over and over again I'm sure laws would be made to have them executed, Just as the "Keene Act" in The Watchmen comics forbid superheros because they started to become more of a pain to society then a panacea. In fact The Watchmen in my opinion provides a more realistic portrayal of what superheros/villains would really be like, and that is not that super.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

This quote nicely sums up the situation:

“This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. You truly are incorruptible, aren't you? You won't kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness. And I won't kill you because you're just too much fun. I think you and I are destined to do this forever.”​

The author of the article you linked to then makes a sound argument for why the Joker should be killed:

Gothem city would be much safer if the Joker were killed.
The Joker is a clear example of “an unstoppable” force that can be seen to harm. The Joker proves time and again his disregard for law, any semblance of respect for other lives, and his consistent need to create chaos in a methodical way. No prison can hold him, no punishment will effect him, no treatment will cure him. All have been tried, all quiver into dust or, like Harley Quinn, are transformed into another tool for his plans.

A guaranteed way to prevent any more of these horrible crimes is to end the life that creates them. This is a choice to kill, to severe forever the final thread of life, to close the final door to any problems caused by and to the entity in question;
​

Should the Joker be put to death? Certainly. But should Batman do it? No.

Batman would never kill even a supervillain like the Joker, unless it was in self defense. To suggest that he'd not only kill but then cover up the deed is completely contrary to the nature of Batman and would forever change who he is.

Were Batman to give in to his dark side, even to dispense justice towards someone who clearly deserves it like the Joker, he would no longer be the uncorruptable guardian. Indeed, the Joker would likely die happy if Batman killed him knowing that he'd forced Batman to take the first step down the road towards the chaos that he loves and that the next step would be that much easier.

Batman will capture the Joker and turn him over to the proper authorities. It's then up to the state to try him before a jury of his peers and execute him once he's convicted.

The problem for the author is that he opposes the death penalty. Rather than re-evaluate his principles to make room for even extreme cases, he chooses to corrupt the uncorruptable.

I liked the way you summed that up. We like our superheros and super villains as they are and not as they would be in reality.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

IF superheros and supervillains were real I would agree, more so even if the supervillains were just captured over and over again I'm sure laws would be made to have them executed, Just as the "Keene Act" in The Watchmen comics forbid superheros because they started to become more of a pain to society then a panacea. In fact The Watchmen in my opinion provides a more realistic portrayal of what superheros/villains would really be like, and that is not that super.

I know if I had super powers, I wouldn't be able to live up to the standards of a comic book superhero, and why would I want too?

 

[Balerion]

It really is as simple as Joker being too popular to kill off. But the way they justify his continued existence in spite of his deeds is what makes Batman's such an interesting universe.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I know if I had super powers, I wouldn't be able to live up to the standards of a comic book superhero, and why would I want too?

Which is why superheros are fictional and the superhero reality is impossible. If their were people with superpowers they would still be people, not super evil nor super good... well possible super evil at least but history has shown that there is no limit to human evil and what has been achieved with human good as been limited.

 

[cosmictraveler]

But every time he's free people get hurt and killed and there's at least a billion dollars in damage left in his wake. Just think of all that and say to yourself it doesn't have to happen anymore, if only Batman would kill him.

Isn't that true about war films, monster movies and other super hero's ? Most movies are made for entertainment and most everyone who views them know that it's all made up for the most part and can separate reality from fictionalized movies. Well at least most people can, I'm not so sure about you however.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

Isn't that true about war films, monster movies and other super hero's ? Most movies are made for entertainment and most everyone who views them know that it's all made up for the most part and can separate reality from fictionalized movies. Well at least most people can, I'm not so sure about you however.

AH! That's good, a little mystery is always good. Hey I'm with the rest of you, I like my super hero's and villains the way they are. But if I was Batman I'd kill the joker and just move on to the next villain.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Assuming we take it as real world situation and ignore the need for dramatic storytelling, I would say that Joker should be executed, but not by Batman. Killing the Joker would save lives overall, but putting the decision to kill the Joker into the hands of an obviously troubled vigilante is no way to teach anyone:

[quote="KillJoyClown]that hurting others will not be tolerated by society.[/quote]

Decisions to take the life of anyone should never come down to what one man feels about the situation, even if he thinks its crystal clear, especially one who wears a costume and prowls the streets at night to symbolically avenge the deaths of his parents.

That Batman only harms wrongdoers, doesn't change that, because Batman is still fallible. (We think he only harms wrongdoers...but a "real life" Batman living his secretive life would might well be implicated in less ethical undertakings in the press...the comics give us a high degree of detail on his story that we would not get if a real vigilante in the same vein walked the streets.)

Plus vigilantism kills the rule of law. Even if we trust Batman to remain ethical all the time (which I would not were he real), he encourages others to take the law into their own hands and they might not share his deductive abilities or ethical standards.

I think there is a place for the death penalty in society, but I don't think any one man should consider himself empowered to make the decision unilaterally. If the society is too corrupt to do what needs to be done, then Batman should hang up his cowl and devote his billions to moving all the innocent people someplace nicer, like Metropolis or Central City (which at least seem clean), if not out of the way places like Smallville.

Why don't people leave Gotham? Oh dear, it seems all the insane supervillains have escaped from Arkham . . . AGAIN! Oh well, gotta go to work!

 

[KilljoyKlown]

Assuming we take it as real world situation and ignore the need for dramatic storytelling, I would say that Joker should be executed, but not by Batman. Killing the Joker would save lives overall, but putting the decision to kill the Joker into the hands of an obviously troubled vigilante is no way to teach anyone:



Decisions to take the life of anyone should never come down to what one man feels about the situation, even if he thinks its crystal clear, especially one who wears a costume and prowls the streets at night to symbolically avenge the deaths of his parents.

That Batman only harms wrongdoers, doesn't change that, because Batman is still fallible. (We think he only harms wrongdoers...but a "real life" Batman living his secretive life would might well be implicated in less ethical undertakings in the press...the comics give us a high degree of detail on his story that we would not get if a real vigilante in the same vein walked the streets.)

Plus vigilantism kills the rule of law. Even if we trust Batman to remain ethical all the time (which I would not were he real), he encourages others to take the law into their own hands and they might not share his deductive abilities or ethical standards.

I think there is a place for the death penalty in society, but I don't think any one man should consider himself empowered to make the decision unilaterally. If the society is too corrupt to do what needs to be done, then Batman should hang up his cowl and devote his billions to moving all the innocent people someplace nicer, like Metropolis or Central City (which at least seem clean), if not out of the way places like Smallville.

Why don't people leave Gotham? Oh dear, it seems all the insane supervillains have escaped from Arkham . . . AGAIN! Oh well, gotta go to work!

Well when you put it like that I have to agree with you. Well said.

 

[Syne]

Should the Joker be put to death? Certainly. But should Batman do it? No.

I agree. Vigilante murder is still unlawful murder, whether it can be made to look like an accident or not. Actually, making it look like an accident would imply much more premeditation and wrongdoing. So in what brief time you do have him in prison, plan a speedy and lawful execution.