Does Batman's "no killing" stance have any scientific merit?

[Ascended]

If Batman's absolute philosophy doesn't hold up absolutely, then we should absolutely not get behind him and root for him. We need to find another hero to get behind.

May I direct you to the greatest true badass to ever see print by the name of Superman?

[stebbinsd]

It wasn't like that, when Batman found Jason, he was already dead. If Batman had killed the Joker, it wouldn't have been to protect Jason, but just to get revenge. It wasn't a case where killing was neccesary in order to save someone.

No, Jason Todd blames Batman for his death, not because Batman didn't get there in time, but because Batman could have killed the Joker years before but never did. Jason's logic was that Batman had the ability to prevent Jason's death, as well as the deaths of plenty of other innocents, if he just put the Joker out of his misery after the first hundred or so murders. Jason blames Batman because Batman knew that the Joker was incorrigible, had given up trying to rehabilitate him years ago, but he never actually finished the job despite having numerous opportunities to do so.

It's kind of like if a messy, sloppy tenant caused severe termite and cockroach damage to his apartment building (including his neighbors), and then just shrugged and told his landlord "Well, how was I supposed to know this was going to happen?" Dude ... you should have known this would happen if you kept up this messy lifestyle of yours! Put your damn trash away! It's still totally your fault!

That's how Jason views Batman's refusal to kill the Joker.

[Darkspellmaster]

Its not Batman's or Batgirl's or any other Heroes Job to kill the villains. Real question is why the Judicial System in Gotham is so inefficient. The real answer is probably so Batman doesn't end up like Punisher with no good villians cause they all end up dead.

There's actually a reason that the situation with legal system within Gotham is so screwed up, corruption by the Mob. Seriously, outside of the Rogues that Batman deals with, the ones that cause the most harm to the city are the mobsters that still operate there. In most cases a lot of them get off due to good lawyers and there's corruption in them buying off or killing people that could lead them to go to jail. It's a cycle that can't be won until the Mobsters can't buy out someone, or have the best lawyer's money can buy. I would also say that in some way it's in the best interest to Arkham to have the rogues get out so that they can keep making money.

Bruce doesn't kill for a number of reasons, also one solid one outside of his own oath is because the moment he does he's no better than the guys that he fights.

[Darkspellmaster]

No, Jason Todd blames Batman for his death, not because Batman didn't get there in time, but because Batman could have killed the Joker years before but never did. Jason's logic was that Batman had the ability to prevent Jason's death, as well as the deaths of plenty of other innocents, if he just put the Joker out of his misery after the first hundred or so murders. Jason blames Batman because Batman knew that the Joker was incorrigible, had given up trying to rehabilitate him years ago, but he never actually finished the job despite having numerous opportunities to do so.

It's kind of like if a messy, sloppy tenant caused severe termite and cockroach damage to his apartment building (including his neighbors), and then just shrugged and told his landlord "Well, how was I supposed to know this was going to happen?" Dude ... you should have known this would happen if you kept up this messy lifestyle of yours! Put your damn trash away! It's still totally your fault!

That's how Jason views Batman's refusal to kill the Joker.

And there in lies part of the issue with Jason's view point. So let's say Joker dies, we already know that there are others out there that want to be like him, and that could easily take up his role. No matter if he actually were to die, you'd have people who would become like him. We've seen it with another character that, for a while, took on the role of the Joker. That's not to mention that even if Batman killed the Joker, it wouldn't have brought Jason back. He could have asked Ra's to bring Jason back as well, but he didn't because he knew that it would be cruel to do that to Jason at the time.

Also I would argue that even if you killed the Joker that wouldn't stop the death of other people. Joker is not the end all be all of Gotham, and Jason knows that, or should. There are far worse people out there that kill for the fun of it (Black Mask) or Kill because they are compelled to (Zazs). So any argument on the idea that Killing the Joker would fix things is a fools view point. Not killing him also gives a chance for others to see that they could be fairly tried, and, oddly, the Joker keeps things in some sort of order with the rogues, because he's nuts enough that they're scared of what they can do to him. I don't think anyone who challenged him on this has lived to talk about it.

[JackDaw]

Going back far enough hasn’t Batman used guns and killed?

Certainly got a memory of an early Bill Finger story in which some humans took a drug that turned them into crazed giants. Pretty soon, Batman was fixing a machine gun to a bi-plane...and gunning them down double pronto.

And yes...they died, because “this was merciful because there was no way to reverse the drug”. (Not the exact words...but that summed up the sentiment.)

[Chubistian]

No, Jason Todd blames Batman for his death, not because Batman didn't get there in time, but because Batman could have killed the Joker years before but never did. Jason's logic was that Batman had the ability to prevent Jason's death, as well as the deaths of plenty of other innocents, if he just put the Joker out of his misery after the first hundred or so murders. Jason blames Batman because Batman knew that the Joker was incorrigible, had given up trying to rehabilitate him years ago, but he never actually finished the job despite having numerous opportunities to do so.

It's kind of like if a messy, sloppy tenant caused severe termite and cockroach damage to his apartment building (including his neighbors), and then just shrugged and told his landlord "Well, how was I supposed to know this was going to happen?" Dude ... you should have known this would happen if you kept up this messy lifestyle of yours! Put your damn trash away! It's still totally your fault!

That's how Jason views Batman's refusal to kill the Joker.

Todd blamed Batman for not killing Joker after he murdered him. Of course, he thought Batman should have made the decission years before, but what really drove him nuts was seeing that Bruce couldn't take Joker's life even after Joker killed him. I doubt Jason currently believes that, as he now is part again of the batfamily and his methods have changed so he can belong in it, even though he's still the more willingly to kill if it would be necessary, he stopped being someone who kills criminals if there isn't an important reason. Before, he would go as far a killing people who crossed his path, as two hospital guards, or maybe they were policemen, in Morrison's Batman & Robin.

But that was Jason's point of view, it doesn't mean that Batman's view on killing is wrong. He stops crime, saves lifes, fights against threats towards his city, mankind, etcetera. You can't blame him for Joker's crimes, Joker is the only one to blame for his atrocities. Someone wants Joker dead (Red Hood, a civilian, a policeman, etcetera)? Well, they should be the ones to go ahead and kill him instead of telling Batman what to do

[stebbinsd]

That's not to mention that even if Batman killed the Joker, it wouldn't have brought Jason back.

No no no! You're completely missing the point!

Let's assume that Jason Todd was killed in the year 1995. Let's also assume that Batman realized the Joker was beyond rehabilitation in the year 1990. If Batman had killed the Joker in the year 1990, when he realized that was the only way to stop him, that would have prevented Jason's murder five years before then.

Batman could have been all like "Ok, you've killed twenty people already. It's clear you're going to kill again and again. I may not be able to save the twenty you've already killed, but I can still save the thousands you'll go on to kill in the future, even if I don't know exactly who they are, by putting you out of your misery right here and now."

This isn't a case of Batman not acting in the moment. This is a case of Batman not acting when he had plenty of fore-knowledge that things weren't going to improve.

Also I would argue that even if you killed the Joker that wouldn't stop the death of other people. Joker is not the end all be all of Gotham, and Jason knows that, or should. There are far worse people out there that kill for the fun of it (Black Mask) or Kill because they are compelled to (Zazs). So any argument on the idea that Killing the Joker would fix things is a fools view point. Not killing him also gives a chance for others to see that they could be fairly tried, and, oddly, the Joker keeps things in some sort of order with the rogues, because he's nuts enough that they're scared of what they can do to him. I don't think anyone who challenged him on this has lived to talk about it.

Killing The Joker would not instantly turn Gotham overnight into a utopia, no of course not. Yes, there would be other criminals. Why not just kill them, too?

Every time you put a super criminal out of his or her misery, the criminal population goes down by 1. Eventually, it will reach 0. It won't go down to 0 after just one killing, but it will go down bit by bit until there's no one left to carry the mantel of organized crime.

We're given no indication, anywhere in the comics, that the DC universe is like the world of Fallout 4, where no matter how many raiders you kill, there will always be some settlement that needs you help ("I'll mark it on your map"). In Fallout 4, those same raiders are literally coming back to life off-screen (as evidenced by how, in Oblivion, if you use a poisoned apple on a respawning NPC, such as a guard or bandit, that NPC would just continuously drop dead for no apparent reason because he keeps the poisoned apple effect upon respawning), and the game presents them, in-universe, as just being a new generation of raiders, not the same raiders you killed last time. In-universe, your efforts to cleanse the Commonwealth of raider scum are completely fruitless, because no matter how many times you put them down, more will always come.

The DC comics give us no indication that the super criminals of Gotham City are like that. You put enough of them down, the rest will give up their criminal ways (or at least go into hiding) to prevent the same fate from happening them.

This in turn means there will be fewer people openly advertising to new would-be criminals, offering to teach them how to be criminals effectively. Therefore, there would be fewer people entering the world of crime, and a lot more entering the world without having a clue what they're doing and therefore getting busted almost instantly.

The results of killing the supervillains wouldn't happen overnight. But they would still happen.

[Darkspellmaster]

Going back far enough hasn’t Batman used guns and killed?

Certainly got a memory of an early Bill Finger story in which some humans took a drug that turned them into crazed giants. Pretty soon, Batman was fixing a machine gun to a bi-plane...and gunning them down double pronto.

And yes...they died, because “this was merciful because there was no way to reverse the drug”. (Not the exact words...but that summed up the sentiment.)

Yes he did. At the time, because he was closer to the Shadow in character and then they decided to make him more his own thing. Golden age batman did, Silver and Bronze no. Modern certainly not.

[Darkspellmaster]

No no no! You're completely missing the point!

Let's assume that Jason Todd was killed in the year 1995. Let's also assume that Batman realized the Joker was beyond rehabilitation in the year 1990. If Batman had killed the Joker in the year 1990, when he realized that was the only way to stop him, that would have prevented Jason's murder five years before then.

Batman could have been all like "Ok, you've killed twenty people already. It's clear you're going to kill again and again. I may not be able to save the twenty you've already killed, but I can still save the thousands you'll go on to kill in the future, even if I don't know exactly who they are, by putting you out of your misery right here and now."

This isn't a case of Batman not acting in the moment. This is a case of Batman not acting when he had plenty of fore-knowledge that things weren't going to improve.

Firstly to Bruce anyone can be rehabilitated. We've seen him feel that way for Harvey, Riddler, Ivy, etc. And at least two of them have made it out to reform. Both Ivy and Riddler have become heroic. The Joker is a weird case because Golden age Joker wasn't as insane as his modern counter part and did have instances where he was good. Even modern Joker, when he was revived by Ra's was actually a decent person recalling all the things he did and felt guilty for it, until the crazy came back after the pit's stuff wore out.

Secondly, Bruce wouldn't put himself in that light because he feels he has no right to decide who lives and dies. He doesn't have the authority to do that, it's something that he has told Jason before, as well as several other people who want to kill to get revenge. It doesn't change a damn thing. As I said, killing the Joker wouldn't save all those people because, in the end, someone else could go and kill them anyway.

Killing The Joker would not instantly turn Gotham overnight into a utopia, no of course not. Yes, there would be other criminals. Why not just kill them, too?

Because that would just make you as much of a mad man as the Joker, period. Bruce is working inside the law that's his thing. Killing them would not fix them, would not help them. To him these people need help. Some can be helped, (Harvey, Ivy, Edward) others are going to take a long time (Crane, Hatter, Victor), but to Bruce it can happen. He's seen it with smaller criminals, he's seen it with the likes of Lex and some of the other Rouges from other heroes (Captain Cold), so it's not like it can't happen for these people too.

Every time you put a super criminal out of his or her misery, the criminal population goes down by 1. Eventually, it will reach 0. It won't go down to 0 after just one killing, but it will go down bit by bit until there's no one left to carry the mantel of organized crime.

Except when there are others that will want revenge, or want to take their place, like fans. Look at the Jokerz gang from Batman Beyond. They came about because they saw him as a martyr. You don't want that, and neither does Bruce.

We're given no indication, anywhere in the comics, that the DC universe is like the world of Fallout 4, where no matter how many raiders you kill, there will always be some settlement that needs you help ("I'll mark it on your map"). In Fallout 4, those same raiders are literally coming back to life off-screen (as evidenced by how, in Oblivion, if you use a poisoned apple on a respawning NPC, such as a guard or bandit, that NPC would just continuously drop dead for no apparent reason because he keeps the poisoned apple effect upon respawning), and the game presents them, in-universe, as just being a new generation of raiders, not the same raiders you killed last time. In-universe, your efforts to cleanse the Commonwealth of raider scum are completely fruitless, because no matter how many times you put them down, more will always come.

The DC comics give us no indication that the super criminals of Gotham City are like that. You put enough of them down, the rest will give up their criminal ways (or at least go into hiding) to prevent the same fate from happening them.

You're equating a passive medium (Comics) to a interactive medium (games) and it's two very wildly different set ups. In the game of Fallout you have the choice to make your actions. You chose to give that apple to that NPC, you are making the choices and thus this is your choice as a player. NPCs are computer created characters that Need to respawn to give you enemies to fight. That is their goal in that aspect. Its a story that you the player shape. Comics are passive meaning that you're riding along with the writer and artist and they are the one making the choices, not you. You can't change what Batman choose to do in this case. You're just watching him make those choices and getting insight as to why he made them. Vastly different situations there.

As for the idea that if you put enough of them down the rest would give up. No, no they wouldn't. Look at other series where the heroes do kill other characters and they stay dead, like in Dragon Ball Z. Yes they killed Raditz but then Freeza came right after. Just because you think that killing someone will make others change their ways, doesn't make it true. A power vacuum would cause those that were below the boss to fight over who gets to be top dog. It would be a gang war!

This in turn means there will be fewer people openly advertising to new would-be criminals, offering to teach them how to be criminals effectively. Therefore, there would be fewer people entering the world of crime, and a lot more entering the world without having a clue what they're doing and therefore getting busted almost instantly.

The results of killing the supervillains wouldn't happen overnight. But they would still happen.

Nope that wouldn't be the case. Other villains would come in from other places. Again other comics have shown this in other stories, and in real life as well. When there is an opening people will come to it to gain power. You'd also have the issue of how people would see Batman and his group then. Killers killing sick people would not instill a sense of hope, which is what the Bat symbol stands for in Gotham.

I mean hell, you can turn around and point to Superman and go, "Dude you and your crew have amazing powers, just take over everything and tell everyone you're the law now and then no one would be evil because they would be too scared of the God that could kill them all the time." That is not how these characters work.

[RepHope]

The "meta" reason as others have pointed out is because Joker and the rest are popular and DC is in the comics business to make money. It's why no big villain ever stays dead.

In-universe Bruce doesn't kill because of a variety of reasons, depending on the writer. Sanctity of all life, lingering trauma from his dead parents, fear of falling off the slippery slope, fear Gotham will just create someone worse or revive the Joker, and dedication to the justice system have all been given as reasons.

[Restingvoice]

I can't discount reasoning outside comic, because Jason's death happened because some guy outside the realm of fiction decided it'll be funny to have reader vote for his death. Same goes with Joker's escalation of violence throughout the years. In other words, I can't take discussion about character psychology within a comic seriously if the comic itself heavily depend on outside influence.

[Mistah K88]

Its not Batman's or Batgirl's or any other Heroes Job to kill the villains. Real question is why the Judicial System in Gotham is so inefficient. The real answer is probably so Batman doesn't end up like Punisher with no good villians cause they all end up dead.

I will say that this hits the nail on the head... It's not Batman's job to play judge, jury, and executioner. That said, the slippery slope reason is...well flimsy at best. especially since I think that it has been shown that Batman doesn't have problem killing non human entities (sentience be damned).

Another point to bring up is that writers always trying to up the ante with the Bat Rogues, making them sicker and sicker, starts to make the Arkham revolving door much more noticeable. Like REALLY noticeable.

[Agent Z]

Firstly to Bruce anyone can be rehabilitated. We've seen him feel that way for Harvey, Riddler, Ivy, etc. And at least two of them have made it out to reform. Both Ivy and Riddler have become heroic. The Joker is a weird case because Golden age Joker wasn't as insane as his modern counter part and did have instances where he was good. Even modern Joker, when he was revived by Ra's was actually a decent person recalling all the things he did and felt guilty for it, until the crazy came back after the pit's stuff wore out.

Bruce’s views on rehabilitation seem to mostly apply to people he has a personal connection to like Damian, Jason, Selina, Harvey or Talia.

Secondly, Bruce wouldn't put himself in that light because he feels he has no right to decide who lives and dies. He doesn't have the authority to do that, it's something that he has told Jason before, as well as several other people who want to kill to get revenge. It doesn't change a damn thing. As I said, killing the Joker wouldn't save all those people because, in the end, someone else could go and kill them anyway.

By this logic there’s no point in stopping the Joker’s crimes because someone else will commit a similar or identical crime. Of course, these people could end up dead from something else like a car accident or old age. The point is for Batman to fulfil the duty he took on himself and do what it takes to stop the Joker from killing people. Police officers are not stupid enough to believe that if they save someone from a murderer it means the person saved will not be in danger for the rest of their lives.

Because that would just make you as much of a mad man as the Joker, period.

Not really, no. killing in defense of others is not murder.

Bruce is working inside the law that's his thing.

If he were working inside the law he’s be wearing a badge not a mask. Bruce doesn’t care about the law.

Killing them would not fix them, would not help them. To him these people need help. Some can be helped, (Harvey, Ivy, Edward) others are going to take a long time (Crane, Hatter, Victor), but to Bruce it can happen. He's seen it with smaller criminals, he's seen it with the likes of Lex and some of the other Rouges from other heroes (Captain Cold), so it's not like it can't happen for these people too.

See my post on redemption above. Also, that’s cute and all but I doubt the friends or family members of these guys’ victims care one iota about their rehabilitation. Who is Bruce doing this for – the people or the villains who torment them?

Except when there are others that will want revenge, or want to take their place, like fans. Look at the Jokerz gang from Batman Beyond. They came about because they saw him as a martyr. You don't want that, and neither does Bruce.

The Jokerz gang were a bunch of stupid kids who nowhere near the threat they thought they were. The only time they came across as competent villains was when they were lead by the original Joker and that time travelling villain from that episode of JLU.

As for the idea that if you put enough of them down the rest would give up. No, no they wouldn't. Look at other series where the heroes do kill other characters and they stay dead, like in Dragon Ball Z. Yes they killed Raditz but then Freeza came right after. Just because you think that killing someone will make others change their ways, doesn't make it true. A power vacuum would cause those that were below the boss to fight over who gets to be top dog. It would be a gang war!

As I said above, a successor does not have to be as bad as the predecessor and even then it is better to deal with new enemies than to be living under the thumb of the same villains.

Nope that wouldn't be the case. Other villains would come in from other places. Again other comics have shown this in other stories, and in real life as well. When there is an opening people will come to it to gain power. You'd also have the issue of how people would see Batman and his group then. Killers killing sick people would not instill a sense of hope, which is what the Bat symbol stands for in Gotham.

And the current situation of criminals racking up body counts in the quadruple digits while the heroes cling to self-defeating restrictions is better?

[Darkspellmaster]

Bruce’s views on rehabilitation seem to mostly apply to people he has a personal connection to like Damian, Jason, Selina, Harvey or Talia.

He's also been okay with the Riddler, and various other villains, like recently Lex, choosing to become heroic in their own ways, or fix their lives up. So it's not just those that he knows, but other people as well. Though he's closer to those that he knows and thus more involved personally. But there have been stories where he's talked to and visited both as Bruce and as Batman former criminals that have gone on the straight and narrow road.


[quoteBy this logic there’s no point in stopping the Joker’s crimes because someone else will commit a similar or identical crime. Of course, these people could end up dead from something else like a car accident or old age. The point is for Batman to fulfil the duty he took on himself and do what it takes to stop the Joker from killing people. Police officers are not stupid enough to believe that if they save someone from a murderer it means the person saved will not be in danger for the rest of their lives.[/quote]

I didn't say that there is no point in stopping him. I said there was no point in killing him as then, to others, he'd become something larger. Batman then goes from the guy that stops the crazy man, to the killer that murdered the crazy man. He's become the Punisher, and to those that are Joker fans, he becomes some sort of saint killed under the hand of the "monster" that is the bat. And doing what it takes means capturing him, not killing him.

Not really, no. killing in defense of others is not murder.

If he were working inside the law he’s be wearing a badge not a mask. Bruce doesn’t care about the law.

If you are defending yourself or another person from being killed, no it's not murder. If, on the other hand, you actively planned to kill the person because you knew you were going to get into a fight with them, or get them to attack you, it could be seen as manslaughter, murder in the second, or murder in the first depending on the situation I believe.

Yes, he does. The entire story arc with Steph and Anarky was talking about how she needs to play by the rules, that what Anarkey is doing is wrong, and Batman is, depending on the comics, deputized by the Mayor and Gordan. So while he doesn't have a badge he does care about the law, both his rules and those already in place on the books.

See my post on redemption above. Also, that’s cute and all but I doubt the friends or family members of these guys’ victims care one iota about their rehabilitation. Who is Bruce doing this for – the people or the villains who torment them?

Again, you would be surprised depending on the story you read. Also both. He's said that before too. He's doing this for both of them. People like Pam, Johnathan Crane, Eddy, and Victor, he's said over and over that he feels bad for them. They have brilliant minds, could do so many good things, but they're corrupted and need help.

The Jokerz gang were a bunch of stupid kids who nowhere near the threat they thought they were. The only time they came across as competent villains was when they were lead by the original Joker and that time travelling villain from that episode of JLU.

As I said above, a successor does not have to be as bad as the predecessor and even then it is better to deal with new enemies than to be living under the thumb of the same villains.

To a point, sure, but as you pointed out when they have a strong enough leader to unite them, they become dangerous. And it's not hard to see someone taking up the mantle of Joker at some point because they see him as awe inspiring.

Again to a point. We won't know until someone tries to usurp the Joker, and if that happens, they would have to be just as nuts. No a successor doesn't have to be as bad, but that doesn't mean that they can't be. It's all going to depend upon the writer.

And the current situation of criminals racking up body counts in the quadruple digits while the heroes cling to self-defeating restrictions is better?

That is on the fault of the writers. Most of the original stories had smaller amounts of people being killed by these guys. It's only been in recent years that we've seen the numbers go up and up for dramatic reasons. To make them seem more monstrous, or give Bruce a harder reason to dislike them and go after them. You honestly don't need them doing that. I actually liked the idea of some of them not actually killing people but screwing them over and other goals.
Harvey as Two face wanting to take over the Mob so he can "fix it", Pam wanting to change the world into a plant paradise, Edward wanting to just one up batman in his intelligence.

Since when did it all become about murder and who has the highest Kill count?

[Tuck]

I will never understand this weird need some fans have to see superheroes kill.