Should Batman kill the Joker?

[William300]

PIS is when characters act stupidly to serve the plot. Lazarus pits aren't PIS. If anything they're deus ex machina devices.

And the fact is the Lazarus Pits are under the control of Ras and the League, theres no way they would allow the Joker to be brought back with the the pits

[mrswing]

Yes he should. But it's the writers' fault (beginning with Alan Moore).

In the olden days (pre-killing joke) The Joker was 'just' a supervillain with a clown theme. He occasionally killed someone, but he was no worse than the other major bat-villains.

All that has changed, and every writer is trying to outdo him- and occasionally herself in order to make Joker as repulsive, perverted and sadistic as possible within the confines of a teen-centered book. I'm sure they would have made him a paedophile serial killer by now if they thought they could get away with it.

But as the crimes get ever more extreme and nauseating (or 'cool' as the fanboys call it), the punishment becomes ever less severe. Joker gets punched a few times. He gets locked up and escapes straightaway. Or he gets caught up in an explosion or a high fall, and his body isn't recovered. Big deal.

Because Joker is such a monstrous mass murderer, it just doesn't do to hold to an extreme code vs. killing (at least a 15 pt disadvantage in Champions terms where Bruce Wayne is concerned) in the face of such mass sadistic slaughter.

Or at the very least, Batman should disable the Joker permanently. Cut off arms and legs, burst eardrums, cut out eyes and tongue. And keep the pitiful remains locked away forever.

Is Batman responsible for all of Jokers victims in recent years? Yes. He knows what Joker will do each time he escapes. And yet, he just keeps enabling the bastard.

Even Superman thought so in Injustice. And sorry to break it to you, Bats, but Superman was right. And after three years of morally suspect choices, he's STILL right.

Of course, when Joker dies, it should be the punchline to a joke. And the best joke would be that an ordinary person, not involved in superheroing or crimefighting, would do what Batman never would: rid the world of the worst criminal since Hitler and Stalin.

[William300]

Yes he should. But it's the writers' fault (beginning with Alan Moore).

In the olden days (pre-killing joke) The Joker was 'just' a supervillain with a clown theme. He occasionally killed someone, but he was no worse than the other major bat-villains.

All that has changed, and every writer is trying to outdo him- and occasionally herself in order to make Joker as repulsive, perverted and sadistic as possible within the confines of a teen-centered book. I'm sure they would have made him a paedophile serial killer by now if they thought they could get away with it.

But as the crimes get ever more extreme and nauseating (or 'cool' as the fanboys call it), the punishment becomes ever less severe. Joker gets punched a few times. He gets locked up and escapes straightaway. Or he gets caught up in an explosion or a high fall, and his body isn't recovered. Big deal.

Because Joker is such a monstrous mass murderer, it just doesn't do to hold to an extreme code vs. killing (at least a 15 pt disadvantage in Champions terms where Bruce Wayne is concerned) in the face of such mass sadistic slaughter.

Or at the very least, Batman should disable the Joker permanently. Cut off arms and legs, burst eardrums, cut out eyes and tongue. And keep the pitiful remains locked away forever.

Is Batman responsible for all of Jokers victims in recent years? Yes. He knows what Joker will do each time he escapes. And yet, he just keeps enabling the bastard.

Even Superman thought so in Injustice. And sorry to break it to you, Bats, but Superman was right. And after three years of morally suspect choices, he's STILL right.

Of course, when Joker dies, it should be the punchline to a joke. And the best joke would be that an ordinary person, not involved in superheroing or crimefighting, would do what Batman never would: rid the world of the worst criminal since Hitler and Stalin.

Yes, I posted this thread, because in the last few years I've began to doubt Batman's reason fro not killing him. I mean when you look at most of Batman's villains they often was a decent person or at least might be redeemable, Two Face and Mr. Freeze were both good men at one point, Hush was at one point Bruce's friend. But not Joker, he's done nothing but cause death and destruction. I think it was Death of the Family that made me realize that it was past due that Joker be dealt with. When your own rules are causing harm to those you've sworn to protect, it's time for a compromise. It's come to a point where it's being hinted that Batman might even enjoy his and Joker's game of cat and mouse.

[electr1cgoblin]

Yes, I posted this thread, because in the last few years I've began to doubt Batman's reason fro not killing him. I mean when you look at most of Batman's villains they often was a decent person or at least might be redeemable, Two Face and Mr. Freeze were both good men at one point, Hush was at one point Bruce's friend. But not Joker, he's done nothing but cause death and destruction. I think it was Death of the Family that made me realize that it was past due that Joker be dealt with. When your own rules are causing harm to those you've sworn to protect, it's time for a compromise. It's come to a point where it's being hinted that Batman might even enjoy his and Joker's game of cat and mouse.

So what's the level of evil that must be attained before you think it's OK for Batman to kill? I mean, I cannot imagine that the cries for bloody vengeance would end with the Joker's death. Penguin has killed lots of folks, Killer Croc, Bane...most of Batman's villains are murderers. I'm just wondering where you set the marker at.

If you have trouble answering, that's because no one can formulate a hard and fast rule for when killing should be OK. It is either OK all the time or it isn't OK, when it comes to murderers. What's the formula? 50 murders should be punishable by death, but 27 shouldn't? How about 32? Or 9?

It's all subjective and I think that's why they don't have Batman's morals be defined by the actions of his adversaries. You don't 'adjust' principles. You either believe in them and practice them, or you don't.

[Kanon the Sea Dragon]

Yes he should. But it's the writers' fault (beginning with Alan Moore).

In the olden days (pre-killing joke) The Joker was 'just' a supervillain with a clown theme. He occasionally killed someone, but he was no worse than the other major bat-villains.

All that has changed, and every writer is trying to outdo him- and occasionally herself in order to make Joker as repulsive, perverted and sadistic as possible within the confines of a teen-centered book. I'm sure they would have made him a paedophile serial killer by now if they thought they could get away with it.

But as the crimes get ever more extreme and nauseating (or 'cool' as the fanboys call it), the punishment becomes ever less severe. Joker gets punched a few times. He gets locked up and escapes straightaway. Or he gets caught up in an explosion or a high fall, and his body isn't recovered. Big deal.

Because Joker is such a monstrous mass murderer, it just doesn't do to hold to an extreme code vs. killing (at least a 15 pt disadvantage in Champions terms where Bruce Wayne is concerned) in the face of such mass sadistic slaughter.

Or at the very least, Batman should disable the Joker permanently. Cut off arms and legs, burst eardrums, cut out eyes and tongue. And keep the pitiful remains locked away forever.

Is Batman responsible for all of Jokers victims in recent years? Yes. He knows what Joker will do each time he escapes. And yet, he just keeps enabling the bastard.

Even Superman thought so in Injustice. And sorry to break it to you, Bats, but Superman was right. And after three years of morally suspect choices, he's STILL right.

Of course, when Joker dies, it should be the punchline to a joke. And the best joke would be that an ordinary person, not involved in superheroing or crimefighting, would do what Batman never would: rid the world of the worst criminal since Hitler and Stalin.

You have very good points
Man, i miss when the Joker was , just other super villain with a clown theme . You know, an actual character. Now he became a walking plot device

[William300]

So what's the level of evil that must be attained before you think it's OK for Batman to kill? I mean, I cannot imagine that the cries for bloody vengeance would end with the Joker's death. Penguin has killed lots of folks, Killer Croc, Bane...most of Batman's villains are murderers. I'm just wondering where you set the marker at.

If you have trouble answering, that's because no one can formulate a hard and fast rule for when killing should be OK. It is either OK all the time or it isn't OK, when it comes to murderers. What's the formula? 50 murders should be punishable by death, but 27 shouldn't? How about 32? Or 9?

It's all subjective and I think that's why they don't have Batman's morals be defined by the actions of his adversaries. You don't 'adjust' principles. You either believe in them and practice them, or you don't.

It depends on the villain. Bane has a certain sense of honor, yea he's a criminal but I don't think he'd straight up kill a civilian for his own enjoyment. Killer Croc probably can't be saved, but he's reverted to animal instinct. The Joker has caused more death and destruction than any of the other villains, and while Bane would cause destruction, it's always for a purpose. Joker's actions are pure chaos, he loves anarchy, there's no rhyme or reason to i. Bane can be reasoned with, he's even worked as an ally with Batman in the past. Joker can't be reasoned with because he has no reason.

[electr1cgoblin]

It depends on the villain. Bane has a certain sense of honor, yea he's a criminal but I don't think he'd straight up kill a civilian for his own enjoyment. Killer Croc probably can't be saved, but he's reverted to animal instinct. The Joker has caused more death and destruction than any of the other villains, and while Bane would cause destruction, it's always for a purpose. Joker's actions are pure chaos, he loves anarchy, there's no rhyme or reason to i. Bane can be reasoned with, he's even worked as an ally with Batman in the past. Joker can't be reasoned with because he has no reason.

I think a lot of the problem with the Joker issue is that we are expected to treat him as a human being, which he is, and yet they portray as something much more. He survives everything, can break out of anywhere, is beyond reason, is incredibly (one could say 'inhumanly') cunning, etc. He's a human character who seems to have supernatural qualities, almost. And yet Batman is left with the reality that killing him would be killing a person, not exorcising a demon. The writers seem to want to have it both ways, and at this point, it's not working that well.

I do see your point, but as long as the Joker is still somehow just a man, Batman should not kill him IMHO.

[Kanon the Sea Dragon]

If yo guys go to my messages history, im far from a person who likes to complain, but this is my honest opinion.
After read the tread about batman shoud kill the joker, i realized that....i really miss the old days when Joker was just a super villain with a clown theme, i mean, when he actually has a character. Now i just see him as a walkin plot line. Yeah, maybe Endgame is the last time Snyder wrote him, but it doesnt mean other other writer will not bring him back for "the biggest and scariest batman story ever "
In their effort for convice us that he is barely a human being, he barely has a character
I want to read a batman rogue, if i would like to read about evil forces beyond our knowin , i would read hellblazer
Juts my opinion, please respect it. And of course, you guys opinions is welcome

[William300]

I don't know. The Joker had lots of character in death of the family. I actually kind of like the idea of Joker not being around for long periods of time and then popping up to cause destruction.

[2814sector]

You might want to try the recent Hardcover release Tales of the Dark Knight by Len Wein, He manages to get almost every Bat-foe in his run, correct.

[Xero Kaiser]

Yes he should. But it's the writers' fault.
In the olden days (pre-killing joke) The Joker was 'just' a supervillain with a clown theme. He occasionally killed someone, but he was no worse than the other major bat-villains

Yeah, I've said it before and I'll say it again. A no-killing code just looks more and more ridiculous as the villains get more and more extreme. You can't have these guys committing mass genocide and still pretend like you can present an argument against taking them out that sounds at all reasonable.

[Dmreyn]

Yeah, I've said it before and I'll say it again. A no-killing code just looks more and more ridiculous as the villains get more and more extreme. You can't have these guys committing mass genocide and still pretend like you can present an argument against taking them out that sounds at all reasonable.

Well, it's not just Batman's fault. Really, it's the whole city's. Why aren't the courts at fault? The judges and jury who sentence him? Shouldn't he have received the death penalty about 50 times by now? Is it because he's criminally insane? Obviously in comics "criminally insane" is totally different. Even though he's in Arkham, everybody knows that he is well aware of his actions and how bad they are. Is it because he's in a state that doesn't allow the death penalty? Seeing as the huge amounts of killing he's done, and considering many of his acts would probably even be categorized as terrorism, he's certainly liable for the death penalty on a federal level if the state won't do it.

[colossus34]

The whole idea that Batman has this unwavering "no kill" policy makes NO SENSE. I mean he should have a policy of avoiding killing and excessive force whenever possible but even Batman should bend the rules every now and then.

I mean are you telling me if Joker had a Bomb that would blow up the entire earth and kill 7 Billion people but Batman could stop him if he kills him then he should say "No way guys. I don't kill. Period. It makes me feel bad." UTTER LAMENESS. Having Batman kill the Joker or some crazed goon that is on a bloodthirsty rampage DOES not make him the Punisher or some psycho vigilante with a death wish. A great writer would show the weight it had on Bruce every time he had to kill someone like Joker and feeling conflicted but ultimately knowing it's the right thing to do.

Like someone else mentioned, the Joker was once just a villain with a clown theme but he's turned into a bloodthirsty maniac on the level of Pol Put and the idea that Batman is okay with this, knowing full well that everytime the Joker comes around he's guaranteed to murder 1,000's then it just makes him look incompetent and irrelevant. It makes him a direct accomplice to the Joker's crimes. People often blame the dog owner and not the dog when a pitbull attacks and kills someone. How is this any different applied to Bruce? He knows he can put this savage dog to sleep so he'll stop murdering and yet he does nothing...

[thwhtGuardian]

The whole idea that Batman has this unwavering "no kill" policy makes NO SENSE. I mean he should have a policy of avoiding killing and excessive force whenever possible but even Batman should bend the rules every now and then.

I mean are you telling me if Joker had a Bomb that would blow up the entire earth and kill 7 Billion people but Batman could stop him if he kills him then he should say "No way guys. I don't kill. Period. It makes me feel bad." UTTER LAMENESS. Having Batman kill the Joker or some crazed goon that is on a bloodthirsty rampage DOES not make him the Punisher or some psycho vigilante with a death wish. A great writer would show the weight it had on Bruce every time he had to kill someone like Joker and feeling conflicted but ultimately knowing it's the right thing to do.

Like someone else mentioned, the Joker was once just a villain with a clown theme but he's turned into a bloodthirsty maniac on the level of Pol Put and the idea that Batman is okay with this, knowing full well that everytime the Joker comes around he's guaranteed to murder 1,000's then it just makes him look incompetent and irrelevant. It makes him a direct accomplice to the Joker's crimes. People often blame the dog owner and not the dog when a pitbull attacks and kills someone. How is this any different applied to Bruce? He knows he can put this savage dog to sleep so he'll stop murdering and yet he does nothing...

This is more a problem of bad writers trying to up the ante than Batman's no kill rule being a bad idea.

[colossus34]

This is more a problem of bad writers trying to up the ante than Batman's no kill rule being a bad idea.

How is it bad writing? So you're saying none of the batman rogues should be mass murders or written that way? Would you like the comics to have a more jovial batman 66 vibe to it? It's not bad writing to evolve the villains and up the ante of threat batman has to face against.