Should Batman Kill?

[QuinnFillory]

This has been one of the longest-running debates in the history of comic books: Should Batman start killing his enemies? He has one of the largest rogues galleries in comics, and the battles he has with them usually results in them either escaping and/or being sent off to Arkham. Now, he does have a good reason for not killing (he doesn't want to turn into a murderer), but Arkham has lousy security, and Gotham is arguably the most messed-up place in the DC universe because of people like the Joker and his ilk. So, should Batman kill?

[Alpha]

The real question is, why the hell hasn't Joker received the death sentence?

[Claude]

Batman shouldn't kill.

This is a separate issue to "would it be more effective/moral to kill the Joker", because Batman's position isn't a reasoned one. He doesn't not kill because it wouldn't work, or because of the same reason that I, personally, oppose the Death Penalty. He doesn't kill because Batman Doesn't Kill. It's part of the very specific, obsessive structure of rules that he's built for himself and that Being Batman means abiding by.

It also makes him more interesting - when, in a world full of mass murderers with increasingly implausible body counts, he fights them with one hand tied behind his back.

[Mark Trail]

In a better written comic book world, he should kill if absolutely necessary to save an innocent life and, occasionally, the writers (Jim Starlin for example) have indicated he would in that limited circumstance. Unfortunately, however, I suspect if we uncorked that particular bottle, he'd turn into the Punisher so fast (only his victims wouldn't stay dead) that not even the Batmobile could keep up.

[Rufio]

In a better written comic book world, he should kill if absolutely necessary to save an innocent life and, occasionally, the writers (Jim Starlin for example) have indicated he would in that limited circumstance. Unfortunately, however, I suspect if we uncorked that particular bottle, he'd turn into the Punisher so fast (only his victims wouldn't stay dead) that not even the Batmobile could keep up.

I agree. I can just see him having “justifiable cause” every new writer.

Ideally it would be for a very particular limited circumstance, but as you said, that circumstance would chance to circumstances. So I vote “No.” because while one good story has the potential to come from that, it’ll quickly devolve.

[Alan2099]

I don't think he should try to kill, but on occasions, I'm not upset when he does.

I do hate when they make him a hypocrite about it though. The Nolan movies were especially bad about it. He made a point of telling people he didn't kill. Except for all those ninjas that were asleep when he set fire to the building there were in. Those don't count. Also he's fine standing there and letting somebody else kill, like Catwoman. As long as HE doesn't do it physically with his own too hands.

What I REALLY hate is how far some writers take his no killing stance. Batman Damned was frankly insulting in this matter. Batman was being tormented because, while he was dying himself, he didn't go out of his way to save the Joker's life.

[Frontier]

It wouldn't really fit the character as they are now and the villains would probably come back anyways.

[WebLurker]

I think his deciding that he won't kill people makes for a more interesting character (he can't take the easy way out, more moral dilemmas, and makes sense as result of losing his own family to violence).

The Nolan movies were especially bad about it. He made a point of telling people he didn't kill. Except fro tall those ninjas that were asleep when he set fire to the building there were in.

I forget which scene that was (been awhile since I've watched).

[Konja7]

I do hate when they make him a hypocrite about it though. The Nolan movies were especially bad about it. He made a point of telling people he didn't kill. Except for all those ninjas that were asleep when he set fire to the building there were in. Those don't count. Also he's fine standing there and letting somebody else kill, like Catwoman. As long as HE doesn't do it physically with his own too hands.

I totally agree. In my opinion, the worst take on this was from Tom King.

In Tom King's story, Batman leaves KGBeast totally incapacitated in the snow to die. Or Batman almost broke Bane's back, because that would worse for Bane than killing him.

That said, I'm okay with there being grey areas around some of his actions and the potential lethality of them. I'm okay with something like ''I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you'', especially if it's an early Batman or a Batman who's really pushed to the brink. If Batman's on a Justice League mission where he literally has to fight off an alien invasion and he blows up some Parademons, or at least doesn't care too much about whether they'll survive his attacks or not, I'm fine. If Gotham is under siege, and he has to unleash some serious firepower from the Batmobile or Batwing that could potentially kill some mooks as collateral damage, I can see him not losing too much sleep over that. And I'm okay with an interpretation of his crusade wherein some of the criminals Batman beats to an inch of their lives could succumb to their injuries eventually...which is what Montoya believes in ''The Other History of the DC Universe''

Honestly, I have problems with the way writers handle "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you''.

If you are the person who directly put the other person in mortal danger, then you let this person die. How could this not be considered murder?

[Baggie_Saiyan]

I don't think he should try to kill, but on occasions, I'm not upset when he does.

I do hate when they make him a hypocrite about it though. The Nolan movies were especially bad about it. He made a point of telling people he didn't kill. Except for all those ninjas that were asleep when he set fire to the building there were in. Those don't count. Also he's fine standing there and letting somebody else kill, like Catwoman. As long as HE doesn't do it physically with his own too hands.

What I REALLY hate is how far some writers take his no killing stance. Batman Damned was frankly insulting in this matter. Batman was being tormented because, while he was dying himself, he didn't go out of his way to save the Joker's life.

The Ra's thing still makes no sense to me. I won't kill you but I won't have to save you??? Same thing. He and Gordon were responsible for the train crashing so him letting Ra's stay on there is the same as killing him.

Nolan would've been fine if like Snyder he simply didn't acknowledge Batman having a no kill rule.

[Jim Kelly]

The real question is, why the hell hasn't Joker received the death sentence?

Surely, having been around here for a long time, you know that the Joker was tried and executed. He went to the chair, but he survived. It all happened in DETECTIVE COMICS 64 (June 1942)--"The Joker Walks the Last Mile" by Bill Finger, Bob Kane and Jerry Robinson. Having paid his debt to society through electric execution, he was no longer held to account for his past crimes. After his revival, the Joker became a non-lethal performance artist which he remained for the next thirty years.

Now, I understand there are multiple Jokers, so it seems like killing one won't work. He's more of an idea than an individual. And killing one just makes the idea that much stronger among his followers. “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.”

As for the Caped Crusader, I grew up watching Sheriff Andy Taylor who never carried a gun unless he was forced to do so. Heroes were like that, when I was a kid. The good cowboys would shoot the guns out of the hands of the desperados. Being such eagle-eyed shots, they didn't need to kill the black hats to defeat them. They were better than that.

[Mr. White]

Latest issue of Human Target had a rather interesing narrative around the subject of killing bad guys.

On Joker, which I think is a major factor in the debate/question (as evidenced by a number of posters), ultimately it's a problem with DC/Writers who have elevated him to a scale equivalent to a small WMD. Of course due to his status of Batman's greatest villain and marketability (sales perspective) etcetera, he cannot be taken off the board permanently.

DC has essentially painted themselves into a corner and this is one of the (many) things we as readers have to suspend belief of/not apply logic to.

[The True Detective]

Latest issue of Human Target had a rather interesing narrative around the subject of killing bad guys.

On Joker, which I think is a major factor in the debate/question (as evidenced by a number of posters), ultimately it's a problem with DC/Writers who have elevated him to a scale equivalent to a small WMD. Of course due to his status of Batman's greatest villain and marketability (sales perspective) etcetera, he cannot be taken off the board permanently.

DC has essentially painted themselves into a corner and this is one of the (many) things we as readers have to suspend belief of/not apply logic to.

That's true about Joker, since he's been elevated from a dangerous but not *too* dangerous clown themed criminal to a "oh **** millions of lives are at risk" every time he escapes level character it creates the question of why nobody has just killed him by now. The real world answer is obviously because he's way too popular to be permanently killed off but his level of in universe menace means realistically somebody would finally have had enough and put a bullet between his eyes.

The no-kill rule exists first and foremost because of the huge popularity of his villains and everyone knows that which is why it's annoying when people ask why Batman doesn't kill them. Same reason he's never slipped and plummeted to his death while swinging from his grappling line. Same reason he's never gonna take a stray bullet to the head while out and about as Bruce Wayne. When you make a company as much money as he and his villains do you're literally bulletproof.

The Peacemaker quote doesn't make sense to me because all of the onus for his rogues actions are 100% put on him. There's no question of what role the state and police play in also not killing them. No question of why Amanda Waller doesn't send in the Suicide Squad to just kill them all and put an end to their crimes. Why other JL members don't go "screw it if Bruce doesn't have the balls to do it we will."

After awhile if it is a well known fact that Gotham is a hellhole with the worst of the worst running around even if you view Bruce as negligent for keeping them alive at what point do other law and vigilante agents start sharing blame for their inaction? Does Peacemaker ever resent Flash, Superman or Wonder Woman for not using their powers to zip into Gotham and kill every villain in a few minutes like they easily could?

[Alpha]

Now, I understand there are multiple Jokers, so it seems like killing one won't work. He's more of an idea than an individual. And killing one just makes the idea that much stronger among his followers. “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.”

Yup, decades of stories you can tell if Joker is executed by the state. Now Bruce is afraid of taking villains to the GCPD because Catwoman, Mister Freeze or Two Face might be the next ones to be executed. And some random unknown person who looks exactly like Joker comes out of nowhere and you see that this plague will never end.

And it brings back a little bit of sense to Gotham

[Mark Trail]

The real question is, why the hell hasn't Joker received the death sentence?

I assume Gotham is located in one of the 26 states that currently has no death penalty.