Joker war

[phonogram12]

While I'm unsure if something worse would take the Joker's place if Batman killed him, something just as bad probably would. Nature abhors a vacuum. As for why Batman doesn't kill, Superman put it best in Mark Waid and Alex Ross' Kingdom Come: "When you strip everything else away from Batman, you're left with someone who doesn't want to see anybody die." That's as good an explanation as any in-universe.

[Light of Justice]

While I'm unsure if something worse would take the Joker's place if Batman killed him, something just as bad probably would. Nature abhors a vacuum. As for why Batman doesn't kill, Superman put it best in Mark Waid and Alex Ross' Kingdom Come: "When you strip everything else away from Batman, you're left with someone who doesn't want to see anybody die." That's as good an explanation as any in-universe.

Once I also on board with Batman kill Joker, but when I think about it, if Batman really abhor kill and see people die, then we shouldn't force him. Even on current real world law, murder must be punished except for self-defense. The one who should take a permanent solution is Gotham crime system. They are the one who has legal power for real. They can put death sentence to Joker and save Batman plus Gotham citizen from trouble. But why they didn't? What's so hard to, I don't know, shoot him on the head when he's confined in straight jacket?

[Aramis]

Allowing someone to kill someone else is no different then doing it yourself. Also how many people has Mr Freeze murdered? Like where does Batman draw the lime then? Look at Two Face’s body count. Or even the messed up stuff Scarecrow has done which is arguably worse than death

None of them have done anything worse that the thousands that Joker has killed.

And about the "allowing" part that is the other problem. Bruce Wayne doesn't have any authority to allow or not allow anyone to do whatever they want (seeing as he easily "allows" criminals to kill innoncets. From your point of view, he's as guilty as those criminals). He's literally a vigilante that acts above the law.
No. Batman can simply not save a psychopath serial killer of certain death. He can just "not stop" someone from doing that needs to be done, it has nothing to do with "allowing". Besides, he seems perfectly fine working with people that have killed, right? It's just that his ego prevents him from seeing any death in """his""" city (unless it's innocent people I guess) All I know is that if I don't have the b*lls to kill, idk, my daugther's psychopatic killer, and I see a guy who saves people and has guns (and a big red helmet), approach that killer to put him under the ground, and I just go away, idk man, I think I'm not really that wrong.

[phonogram12]

IDK, if Batman starts killing anyone, that might be pretty much it for Batman's relationship with the police and Gordon. Even after Joker paralyzed Barbara and tortured him with nude pictures of her in agony, Gordon still wanted him brought in by the book. Same during Hush, when he went so far as to fire warning shots at Bats, telling him that the moment he crosses that line he'll be the one leading the charge to bring him in. If for no other reason, I can see Bruce's respect for Gordon being a reason why he refuses to take a life.

[Tzigone]

IDK, if Batman starts killing anyone, that might be pretty much it for Batman's relationship with the police and Gordon. Even after Joker paralyzed Barbara and tortured him with nude pictures of her in agony, Gordon still wanted him brought in by the book. Same during Hush, when he went so far as to fire warning shots at Bats, telling him that the moment he crosses that line he'll be the one leading the charge to bring him in. If for no other reason, I can see Bruce's respect for Gordon being a reason why he refuses to take a life.

Thing is "the book" allows for lethal force under certain circumstances (for cops, anyway). Batman is way further than that (at times) in his non-killing mentality. And also, I don't like Gordon shaping Bruce to that degree. Bruce should be Batman for a good while (months at least, and maybe a couple years) before he and Gordon are that close, before he has that degree of respect for him. So if Batman was killing then, they wouldn't have progressed to that friendship if Gordon was so very against it. Not to mention that Batman does 406 things every night that are completely against "the book."

I really am A-okay with heroes never killing because they always find another way to win. I don't care if it's unrealistic. But they have taken Bruce really to the point of ridiculousness because of the need for grittiness and bloodshed in the comic. Where he won't kill an actively murdering person even to save multitudes of innocents, and so the innocents die. That's not heroic. I understand if someone just can't do it, but that's not a thing that deserves praise as valuing life or something. Really, he's sometimes been to such an extreme degree about it that it's just another manifestation of his emotional/mental unhealthiness to me.

[Badou]

The idea that if he killed Joker something worse would take his place is also incredibly silly.

Pretty much this. Trying to jump through hoops to explain why characters like the Joker are constantly running around doing awful things despite Batman being this great hero doesn't really work. There is zero in universe explanation for it that would make sense. Even the "no kill rule" completely falls apart when you start to analyze it. The only reason it keeps happening is because the Joker is arguably DC's second most profitable property and they are never going to retire the character. So it makes sense to use him as much as they can to make as much money as possible, but that is an out of universe explanation. In universe there is nothing to justify it. Even if they have a story where they kill the Joker there will just be another story hyping up Joker's big return.

You just have to suspend disbelief and not treat these stories as being serious. You can't really expect Batman to operate with logic since if you start doing that then you basically have to accept that Batman is horrible at his job and Gotham is worse with Batman there. Since Gotham is in constant chaos and being taken over or terrorized by some old or new villain all the time. No one would want to live there. Sure, a big reason for that is the constant power creep for these villains and stories. Where writers are constantly trying one up previous stories by writing bigger ones, and a story were Batman stops a villain way before they cause a ton of chaos isn't as exciting to read. So it's just unavoidable given the nature of modern superhero comics. Maybe it wouldn't be as bad if characters like the Joker were still written as being basic street criminals like they were in the Golden Age where him running around isn't this massive city wide disaster every time, but they will never go back to that. The Joker taking over the city just has more wide appeal than the Joker stealing some diamond and Batman trying to foil his plan.

[phonogram12]

Thing is "the book" allows for lethal force under certain circumstances (for cops, anyway). Batman is way further than that (at times) in his non-killing mentality. And also, I don't like Gordon shaping Bruce to that degree. Bruce should be Batman for a good while (months at least, and maybe a couple years) before he and Gordon are that close, before he has that degree of respect for him. So if Batman was killing then, they wouldn't have progressed to that friendship if Gordon was so very against it. Not to mention that Batman does 406 things every night that are completely against "the book."

I really am A-okay with heroes never killing because they always find another way to win. I don't care if it's unrealistic. But they have taken Bruce really to the point of ridiculousness because of the need for grittiness and bloodshed in the comic. Where he won't kill an actively murdering person even to save multitudes of innocents, and so the innocents die. That's not heroic. I understand if someone just can't do it, but that's not a thing that deserves praise as valuing life or something. Really, he's sometimes been to such an extreme degree about it that it's just another manifestation of his emotional/mental unhealthiness to me.

Thing is, Bats isn't a cop, henceforth, he really doesn't have any oversight or anyone to answer to. As much as it doesn't seem like it, lately, ideally, cops are supposed to. Meaning that Batman killing anyone would mean it's the duty of the GCPD to bring him in. Sure they can look the other way when it comes to B&E's, assault, and reckless driving, but I'd think that they would draw that line at taking a life (like I said, Gordon's said as much).

Plus, it's just as easy to write a story where the system in Gotham works and Joker's lethally injected as it is to write one where Bats simply snaps his neck. I've always wondered why no one ever clamors for that story. At least that one's a bit more hopeful than the alternative.

[Tzigone]

Plus, it's just as easy to write a story where the system in Gotham works and Joker's lethally injected as it is to write one where Bats simply snaps his neck. I've always wondered why no one ever clamors for that story. At least that one's a bit more hopeful than the alternative.

I thought New Jersey didn't have the death penalty? Do we know if the fictional version does? Or if Gotham is still in New Jersey? Though he could be extradited, I'm sure.

I have certainly complained about the lack of non-Bat people taking action (not only cops - even just random people). Not because it's a story I want to see (any more than I want to see Bruce do it), but because it makes no sense in light of what the Joker has become. The biggest problem for me isn't so much that Bruce doesn't take action. It's how he reacts when anyone else attempts to. More than that, it's a big complaint about what the Joker (and numerous other villains) have become in comics ever-increasing quest to make the villains body counts higher and grosser but never get rid of the (valuable IP) villains. It ends up making the heroes extremely crappy at their chosen roles - sometimes it feels like they don't save people anymore, they just capture the villains afterward. But Bruce's too, is a problem to me in that it's another way in which he plays God in "his" city and he gets to decide what other vigilantes do and that it ultimately his actions cost many lives, and in an easily foreseeable way, given past actions of said villains. Not just his inaction in not killing the Joker, but the things he actively does to stop others (or resuscitate him).

[prepmaster]

However, what I can't honestly understand, and I will forever hate, is how he FORBIDS others to do what needs to be done. How he forbids Jason to kill criminals "in his city"; how he doesn't allow Harley to kill the guy who basically ruined her whole life. Since when he has the rights to prevents others to do whatever they think is correct for the sake of the city, especially when he doesn't have that power over the criminals?

Batman represents Law & Order. Batman is a vigilante that works closely with the GCPD while other vigilantes don't. He punishes criminals while keep other vigilantes in check to preserve social order,

[Mr. White]

Pretty much this. Trying to jump through hoops to explain why characters like the Joker are constantly running around doing awful things despite Batman being this great hero doesn't really work. There is zero in universe explanation for it that would make sense. Even the "no kill rule" completely falls apart when you start to analyze it. The only reason it keeps happening is because the Joker is arguably DC's second most profitable property and they are never going to retire the character. So it makes sense to use him as much as they can to make as much money as possible, but that is an out of universe explanation. In universe there is nothing to justify it. Even if they have a story where they kill the Joker there will just be another story hyping up Joker's big return.

You just have to suspend disbelief and not treat these stories as being serious. You can't really expect Batman to operate with logic since if you start doing that then you basically have to accept that Batman is horrible at his job and Gotham is worse with Batman there. Since Gotham is in constant chaos and being taken over or terrorized by some old or new villain all the time. No one would want to live there. Sure, a big reason for that is the constant power creep for these villains and stories. Where writers are constantly trying one up previous stories by writing bigger ones, and a story were Batman stops a villain way before they cause a ton of chaos isn't as exciting to read. So it's just unavoidable given the nature of modern superhero comics. Maybe it wouldn't be as bad if characters like the Joker were still written as being basic street criminals like they were in the Golden Age where him running around isn't this massive city wide disaster every time, but they will never go back to that. The Joker taking over the city just has more wide appeal than the Joker stealing some diamond and Batman trying to foil his plan.

Have a beer on me.
This post pretty much recaps what I (and a lot of others) have been saying.
Let's all just accept it makes no logical sense and move on.

[agentofthebat]

I'm almost done Joker war. I cant wait for the end!

[Aramis]

I thought New Jersey didn't have the death penalty? Do we know if the fictional version does? Or if Gotham is still in New Jersey? Though he could be extradited, I'm sure.

I have certainly complained about the lack of non-Bat people taking action (not only cops - even just random people). Not because it's a story I want to see (any more than I want to see Bruce do it), but because it makes no sense in light of what the Joker has become. The biggest problem for me isn't so much that Bruce doesn't take action. It's how he reacts when anyone else attempts to. More than that, it's a big complaint about what the Joker (and numerous other villains) have become in comics ever-increasing quest to make the villains body counts higher and grosser but never get rid of the (valuable IP) villains. It ends up making the heroes extremely crappy at their chosen roles - sometimes it feels like they don't save people anymore, they just capture the villains afterward. But Bruce's too, is a problem to me in that it's another way in which he plays God in "his" city and he gets to decide what other vigilantes do and that it ultimately his actions cost many lives, and in an easily foreseeable way, given past actions of said villains. Not just his inaction in not killing the Joker, but the things he actively does to stop others (or resuscitate him).

This! This is exactly the point.

Although I guess I could just close my eyes and not analyze how illogical this whole thing, is very difficult for me.

[phonogram12]

I thought New Jersey didn't have the death penalty? Do we know if the fictional version does? Or if Gotham is still in New Jersey? Though he could be extradited, I'm sure.

I have certainly complained about the lack of non-Bat people taking action (not only cops - even just random people). Not because it's a story I want to see (any more than I want to see Bruce do it), but because it makes no sense in light of what the Joker has become. The biggest problem for me isn't so much that Bruce doesn't take action. It's how he reacts when anyone else attempts to. More than that, it's a big complaint about what the Joker (and numerous other villains) have become in comics ever-increasing quest to make the villains body counts higher and grosser but never get rid of the (valuable IP) villains. It ends up making the heroes extremely crappy at their chosen roles - sometimes it feels like they don't save people anymore, they just capture the villains afterward. But Bruce's too, is a problem to me in that it's another way in which he plays God in "his" city and he gets to decide what other vigilantes do and that it ultimately his actions cost many lives, and in an easily foreseeable way, given past actions of said villains. Not just his inaction in not killing the Joker, but the things he actively does to stop others (or resuscitate him).

Well, the last time I remember the death penalty mentioned in a Bat book was the graphic novel from the '90s where Joker was framed for a series of murders he didn't commit and everyone else wanted to let him fry while Bats was more concerned about the actual killer that was still on the loose.

One easy way around this would be for Bruce to use whatever influence he has left under that identity to help ensure that the system in Gotham works. Meaning The Joker would absolutely get the death penalty the next time he was caught and Arkham wouldn't be the revolving door the plot requires it to be.

But I have a feeling most of that would make for some very boring stories.

[Restingvoice]

I thought New Jersey didn't have the death penalty? Do we know if the fictional version does? Or if Gotham is still in New Jersey? Though he could be extradited, I'm sure.

I have certainly complained about the lack of non-Bat people taking action (not only cops - even just random people). Not because it's a story I want to see (any more than I want to see Bruce do it), but because it makes no sense in light of what the Joker has become. The biggest problem for me isn't so much that Bruce doesn't take action. It's how he reacts when anyone else attempts to. More than that, it's a big complaint about what the Joker (and numerous other villains) have become in comics ever-increasing quest to make the villains body counts higher and grosser but never get rid of the (valuable IP) villains. It ends up making the heroes extremely crappy at their chosen roles - sometimes it feels like they don't save people anymore, they just capture the villains afterward. But Bruce's too, is a problem to me in that it's another way in which he plays God in "his" city and he gets to decide what other vigilantes do and that it ultimately his actions cost many lives, and in an easily foreseeable way, given past actions of said villains. Not just his inaction in not killing the Joker, but the things he actively does to stop others (or resuscitate him).

The fictional version still have one because Catwoman was on death row for slaughtering hundreds of terrorist who attacked her orphanage

[Stick Figure]

The only reason Batman doesn’t kill is the Joker is then writers would be required to come up with new villains. That Batman doesn’t kill a maniac like the Joker makes no sense. When books were aimed at children I could understand but not now. This is adult material so let him get his hands dirty. It doesn’t make him less a hero. It just shows he has a breaking point.