Killing VS No killing, Which is the better solution in the real world

[Agent Z]

Thats actually what I meant. You don't want vigilante justice in real life.

The Punisher as an example but what you get is sanders florida in practice.

So no the last thing I want is some coward with a cape deciding he can take a life with impunity.
But... we might be looking at if from different angles as I live in DFW, were black people keep getting killed... some of us in our homes.

Its a different with alien invasion, but I don't want my friendly neighborhood supe, deciding to web up somones mouth till they die.
Instead wrapping them up for the police.

None of this translates well to real life, but I hope my feelings show through here.

Due Process even, piss poor, due process is better than "ME" deciding you're "EVIL" and don't get to live anymore.

I'm saying that when superheroes enter the equation you are already kissing due process goodbye. Whether they kill or not, these guys are engaging in vigilante justice.

[WTNew]

I'm saying that when superheroes enter the equation you are already kissing due process goodbye. Whether they kill or not, these guys are engaging in vigilante justice.

Most of DC and Marvel's heroes are either sanctioned by some governmental agency, or are welcomed to help by police and other law enforcement. They turn the criminals over to the court systems when/if they catch them. This help would not be so welcomed if they left a trail of bodies behind them. Characters like the Punisher or Jason Todd aren't really heroes, but criminal anti-heroes.

In the real world, vigilante justice that involves killing is criminal behavior and would get the Frank Castles of the world put in prison, and deservedly so.

[Agent Z]

Most of DC and Marvel's heroes are either sanctioned by some governmental agency, or are welcomed to help by police and other law enforcement. They turn the criminals over to the court systems when/if they catch them. This help would not be so welcomed if they left a trail of bodies behind them. Characters like the Punisher or Jason Todd aren't really heroes, but criminal anti-heroes.

In the real world, vigilante justice that involves killing is criminal behavior and would get the Frank Castles of the world put in prison, and deservedly so.

I think the multiple accounts of torture, assault, evidence contamination, breaking and entering and property damage would be a bigger issue long before the subject of killing comes up.

[Buried Alien]

The notorious 1980s TRIAL OF THE FLASH storyline explored this idea in excruciating depth, as the Flash (Barry Allen) endured a manslaughter (later upgraded to murder) trial that lasted a full two years.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Sutekh]

Once comic book stuff gets into the narrative, it gets weird fast. Killing is no more effective than catch-and-release-Blackgate or revolving-door-Arkham, since the hot second a new writer wants a particular villain for a story he's got planned, he'll resurrect him, or come up with some other way of bringing him back (the one that died was a copycat! He has a twin! Whatever.). In the end, the decision to kill the villain ends up having zero effect on the villain himself (since he's back after a 'time out' just as if he'd been thrown in jail) and only serves to dirty up the hero that killed him.

In real life? Too big (and contentious) a topic for me. Prisons (or permanent mental health confinement) are way more effective in the real world than in comics. (Various real world serial killers like Charles Manson remain in prison, for instance, and will presumably die there, unlike the Joker, who seems to have a day pass to Arkham.) At it's most simplistic level, is killing wrong? Is killing killers then right, or just 'less wrong?' Is killing criminals sending a message that 'life is precious, to a point, at which it your life no longer has a value, and you'll never be the person in a position of power to make that judgment call of whether your life is legally sacred or worthless...' Just a big mess.

[Buried Alien]

Once comic book stuff gets into the narrative, it gets weird fast. Killing is no more effective than catch-and-release-Blackgate or revolving-door-Arkham, since the hot second a new writer wants a particular villain for a story he's got planned, he'll resurrect him, or come up with some other way of bringing him back (the one that died was a copycat! He has a twin! Whatever.). In the end, the decision to kill the villain ends up having zero effect on the villain himself (since he's back after a 'time out' just as if he'd been thrown in jail) and only serves to dirty up the hero that killed him.

In real life? Too big (and contentious) a topic for me. Prisons (or permanent mental health confinement) are way more effective in the real world than in comics. (Various real world serial killers like Charles Manson remain in prison, for instance, and will presumably die there, unlike the Joker, who seems to have a day pass to Arkham.) At it's most simplistic level, is killing wrong? Is killing killers then right, or just 'less wrong?' Is killing criminals sending a message that 'life is precious, to a point, at which it your life no longer has a value, and you'll never be the person in a position of power to make that judgment call of whether your life is legally sacred or worthless...' Just a big mess.

Charles Manson died in prison nearly two years ago.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[phonogram12]

Any writer who can write a hero who kills is just as capable of writing a judicial system that works. TBH, I've never really understood these arguments because writing a superhero world where the system works is just as easy as anything else.

I mean, it's fiction, after all.

[qwertyuiop1998]

Any writer who can write a hero who kills is just as capable of writing a judicial system that works. TBH, I've never really understood these arguments because writing a superhero world where the system works is just as easy as anything else.

I mean, it's fiction, after all.

I think the reason was just like my topic said, Most writers when writing a hero who kills they just adding a trait for their characters. The criminals dead or alive doesn't matter. They just want to create conflicts to push plot in comics

[phonogram12]

I think the reason was just like my topic said, Most writers when writing a hero who kills they just adding a trait for their characters. The criminals dead or alive doesn't matter. They just want to create conflicts to push plot in comics

Well, at this point, it's kind of a tired one. This isn't a slight towards you in the least, but we've all read this story before. And if they're characters owned by either of the Big 2, they only ever really play out in a couple ways. No real surprises in this area at all, anymore, really.

[Pinsir]

I prefer a little of both. If I can't have a good story then I'd prefer to have a story where my favourite character slaughters their perceived enemies, dining upon the flesh of their fallen opponents.

[shadow6743]

The current Teen Titans run by Adam Glass is currently dealing with how to stop crime permanently without killing. It deals with a lot of mortal issues and it may not be everyone's cup of tea for a Teen Titans run but I really like the idea. It deals with the idea of imprisonment and other issues with the criminal justice system. I recommend it.

[Midnight_v]

I'm saying that when superheroes enter the equation you are already kissing due process goodbye. Whether they kill or not, these guys are engaging in vigilante justice.

And I'm saying... no one wants vigilante justice in real life.
Killing or no killing.

Killing however is the talking point here at the extreme end where people start to say "oh that's wrong".

So no, to killing.... AND... you really dont want vigilantes handing out justice in real life.

But if were being completely forthwith... most of us dont want humans stronger than tanks or police forces, or small armies, or black holes IRL either.

[SiegePerilous02]

I think the multiple accounts of torture, assault, evidence contamination, breaking and entering and property damage would be a bigger issue long before the subject of killing comes up.

Killing is still seen as worse than those. You are ending someone's life and there is obviously no coming back from that for them.

So in the real world, none of the vigilantes would function the way they do in the comics. But Castle and Jason would still come out looking worse because they do all of those things you mention, and also kill.

[Agent Z]

Killing is still seen as worse than those. You are ending someone's life and there is obviously no coming back from that for them.

So in the real world, none of the vigilantes would function the way they do in the comics. But Castle and Jason would still come out looking worse because they do all of those things you mention, and also kill.

Killing can be justified depending on the circumstances. Torture is still seen as barbaric in anything resembling a remotely civilized society.

[Pinsir]

I think the multiple accounts of torture, assault, evidence contamination, breaking and entering and property damage would be a bigger issue long before the subject of killing comes up.

Torture is actually worse then killing because torture doesn't actually work. In the comics torture does work though, so it feeds into the narrative that it does, which people then use to justify torturing in rl.