PDA

View Full Version : What happened to the death sentence?



taryl
24th Sep 2009, 00:28
I mean come on, these "Super Criminals" wouldn't be so super if you'd euthanized them.

From the perspective of Batman and the "good guys" (cops), it sounds like they would let the whole city get massacred than kill some crazy fools who, in reality, actually know the consequences of their actions.

lmao, i looked at Mr. Zsasz's profile, and i see that for each man, he has a mark, and I'm pretty sure they worry more about him running out of places to mark than the lives that went into them.

Pure logic, Batman = EVIL! I mean he doesn't kill, he just lets killers live to kill once more

zx16
24th Sep 2009, 00:48
You sir do not understand Batman then.

Old_BenKenobi
24th Sep 2009, 00:54
They're insane. Thus, they dodge the death penalty.

sparkman2
24th Sep 2009, 01:29
The law says you cant kill people who are insane

JackieFiest
24th Sep 2009, 01:33
Not to mention, if we killed off Ivy, Joker, Clayface, Two-Face, Riddler, Lock Up, Harley, The Ventriloquist, Mr. Freeze...

....there would be no stories for games or comic books.

Batman The Trailer Hunter
24th Sep 2009, 01:51
Not to mention, if we killed off Ivy, Joker, Clayface, Two-Face, Riddler, Lock Up, Harley, The Ventriloquist, Mr. Freeze...

....there would be no stories for games or comic books.

Superman:Metropolis in Peril anyone?

blades of athena
24th Sep 2009, 02:03
The law says you cant kill people who are insane

well actually the law says u cant kill at all... lol

KillerCroc
24th Sep 2009, 02:10
It's Batman. Now if it was me...Joker would be hung in front of the public and I would dictate Gotham City, put the villains/heroes on leashes, and unleash my state troopers and supers on the world and soon within months dominate the world...ACHOO! >_> It's not a dictatorship, it's a monarchy with more violence. :D

taryl
24th Sep 2009, 02:22
They're insane. Thus, they dodge the death penalty.

Yeah, but isn't there a limit to an insane people's kills? Mr. Zsasz prolly killed like 300 ppl (lol, 300, get it?). 300 innocent men, women, maybe children, iono.

Think of it this way, retarded people (who, supposedly, know no better than animals) who kill are like animals. Bears kill because they try to protect their lair or themselves (at least, this has some rationality in it), like psychos, they can't rationalize, but they would if given a chance. We kill bears, therefore we kill animals, therefore we kill murdering psychos who are also considered animals.

I mean real-world wise, I'd be pretty scared if there's a maniac who "needs" to kill people running around the streets. And I'd be more scared if he can escape easily every time he's locked up through the help of his fellow criminals.

lt_skittles
24th Sep 2009, 02:33
Yeah, but isn't there a limit to an insane people's kills? Mr. Zsasz prolly killed like 300 ppl (lol, 300, get it?). 300 innocent men, women, maybe children, iono.

Think of it this way, retarded people (who, supposedly, know no better than animals) who kill are like animals. Bears kill because they try to protect their lair or themselves (at least, this has some rationality in it), like psychos, they can't rationalize, but they would if given a chance. We kill bears, therefore we kill animals, therefore we kill murdering psychos who are also considered animals.

I mean real-world wise, I'd be pretty scared if there's a maniac who "needs" to kill people running around the streets. And I'd be more scared if he can escape easily every time he's locked up through the help of his fellow criminals.

It's Mentally Hilarious, and not retarded, but anyways to answer your question. If any of these super criminals were sentenced there would be no reason for Batman, and there would be no more Batman. I think Zsasz would probably end up on there, but would you like to be the Judge that sentences these criminals to their death?

taryl
24th Sep 2009, 02:44
It's Mentally Hilarious, and not retarded, but anyways to answer your question. If any of these super criminals were sentenced there would be no reason for Batman, and there would be no more Batman. I think Zsasz would probably end up on there, but would you like to be the Judge that sentences these criminals to their death?

Yeah, ur right, but to answer your question: yes if you serious, no if you're not cus if u say no, Batman will still be around. Yes means good ol' regular world w/ little crimes and no more Batman :(

As the Joker said to Batman (in Batman vs. Dracula i think): "You complete me."

I'm pretty sure Batman thinks the same way. Batman + criminals are like yin yang fo life.

lt_skittles
24th Sep 2009, 02:47
Yeah, ur right, but to answer your question: yes if you serious, no if you're not cus if u say no, Batman will still be around. Yes means good ol' regular world w/ little crimes and no more Batman :(

As the Joker said to Batman (in Batman vs. Dracula i think): "You complete me."

I'm pretty sure Batman thinks the same way.

He says it in the Dark Knight also, and something like it in the killing joke.

Old_BenKenobi
24th Sep 2009, 03:20
Yeah, but isn't there a limit to an insane people's kills? Mr. Zsasz prolly killed like 300 ppl (lol, 300, get it?). 300 innocent men, women, maybe children, iono.

Think of it this way, retarded people (who, supposedly, know no better than animals) who kill are like animals. Bears kill because they try to protect their lair or themselves (at least, this has some rationality in it), like psychos, they can't rationalize, but they would if given a chance. We kill bears, therefore we kill animals, therefore we kill murdering psychos who are also considered animals.

I mean real-world wise, I'd be pretty scared if there's a maniac who "needs" to kill people running around the streets. And I'd be more scared if he can escape easily every time he's locked up through the help of his fellow criminals.

No, there is no limit that I know of. They're declared insane for a reason. They don't have control of their behaviour. They're in Arkham because there's a chance they can be cured. Arkham is just a very crappy hospital, and the people they treat are very insane. If Arkham was a better hospital many of the characters would stay locked up for life. if they became cured they would be released. If they killed again they would go under mental evaluation. If they're insane they go back to the hospital for further treatment. If they're sane then they get sent to jail.

jtr7
24th Sep 2009, 04:29
What's lacking are all the vigilantes who don't have Batman's code who would go for a kill shot, snipe them, pull a Jack Ruby, even other criminals and crime lords who were impacted negatively.

ThatGuyHarris
24th Sep 2009, 04:29
Actually, in The Joker: Devil's Advocate they put the Joker in the chair. I don't remember the loophole they used to explain why they suddenly decided after all this time to give him the chair, but it didn't really matter since the crime he was accused of he didn't actually commit and Batman saved him.

But for the most part, the sentiment that they don't execute those deemed criminally insane is correct. In any case you can't assume laws in the DCU mirror those in the real world to the letter.

Matches Malone
24th Sep 2009, 04:33
Plus the idea of stopping the killing by killing someone can't solve a whole lot. The real problem is the corruption and empathy that continually puts the criminals/criminally insane back on the streets. Capitol punishment is a quick but short sighted fix to the large problem.

AStar08
24th Sep 2009, 04:59
Yeah, ur right, but to answer your question: yes if you serious, no if you're not cus if u say no, Batman will still be around. Yes means good ol' regular world w/ little crimes and no more Batman :(

As the Joker said to Batman (in Batman vs. Dracula i think): "You complete me."

I'm pretty sure Batman thinks the same way. Batman + criminals are like yin yang fo life.

I think he is meaning from a "literal/real world" stand point, not from the way everything is depicted in the Batman/Comics universe. I mean if they had to deal with Psycho's like this in real life, insane or not insane they would be executed A.S.A.P...OP, I have also asked myself that same exact question, why wouldnt Gotham just "do away" with these criminals instead of sending them back & forth to jail/Arkham; A method that isnt working at all!

joe5512
24th Sep 2009, 07:36
Hello

I recommend that you watch the movie 'The dark knight' by Cristopher Nolan.
In this movie Batman's moral code is nicely explained.
While Joker is always totally unreliable and has no rules, Batman has rules.
When Batman, in the end of the movie, tells a lie, that he is responsible for the murders committed by Harvey Dent/Two face, this is in order to keep the faith of ordinary people in goodness. Harvey Dent must not fail. He was Gotmans white knight.
So Batman tells a lie, breaks his moral code, but this lie is necessary in service of a higher good - this little lie is done for the sake of all the inhabitants of Gotham's faith in a moral code at all.
So my point is: Joker has no rules. Batman has rules, but can break the rules if this is necessary for - in the long term - applying to the rules.


Joe:)

The_Hylden
24th Sep 2009, 09:02
This is one of the things that I criticize Batman for, bit it's also what makes him who he is. These criminals kill hundreds, even thousands, even those closest to Batman (Jason Todd, before he, uh, came back, or alternate universe snafu...), yet Batman continually, like depicted in Arkham, won't take the final shot to end these destroyers of life. The system is corrupted to the point that these criminals can escape near at will, Batman knows this, knows that each time he refrains for ending their lives, it only ever means more innocents will be tortured and die horribly, yet he never, ever breaks that rule of no killing.

I'm sorry, but these villains have deserved death a hundred fold over and none of them should be walking around in the DC universe, but Batman won't do it. I respect that DC continues to stand by the character's moral code and even in the grittiest of the stories, doesn't have Batman break it. We need heroes that do the supposed right thing, even as the world gets more and more cynical. However, I do believe that all of these horrible beings, were they to actually exist, should be immediately removed from the planet. There would be no qualms on my end about sentencing them all to fry. In fact, I think it would be totally in the realm of real world if, knowing these criminals are insane and all, after a certain death toll and times escaping and terrorizing the citizens, they were sentenced to die and not to be rehabilitated by a judge and jury. I don't doubt that mass-murdering dictators aren't insane in some fassion, but we don't care at that point to rehabilitate them, if we can simply blow them out of the world right when we have the shot to do so. There is a point when society doesn't want to hear a what's morally supposedly right by convicted murderers.

William
24th Sep 2009, 09:32
If batman kills where does he stop? It is not easy taking a life even if it is a murderer and batman is wise not to. And look at the Riddler, he was a killer and now he helps Batman. And is he does kill, what difference is there between batman and those he constantly fights. Batman made a promise to his parents and he wants to achieve his goal the way he believes to be right.

The_Hylden
24th Sep 2009, 09:43
If batman kills where does he stop?

With the death of those aforementioned Supervillain nut-jobs:p


It is not easy taking a life even if it is a murderer and batman is wise not to.

There's nothing easy in life. Making the choice not to kill is just as hard, if not harder with the mental baggadge of the death toll of innocent victims this is causing in the end, than deciding to kill one being then and there to stop all of the senseless killing that being will do, if given the opportunity again.


And look at the Riddler, he was a killer and now he helps Batman. And is he does kill, what difference is there between batman and those he constantly fights. Batman made a promise to his parents and he wants to achieve his goal the way he believes to be right.

The number of innocents dying by all of these wackos over the decades, or however long you wish to say is continuity, more than justifies a loss of Riddler's somewhat reformed/ for his own personal agenda help, or the promise Bruce made. I am sure Bruce has thought long and hard on not only if he's hurting more than helping by not killing these nuts, and if his moral promise is simply selfish and getting in the way of him doing what's necessary save the ones that are innocent from what he knows will be more death and destruction by these maniacs sooner, or later.

Like I said, I respect DC and Batman for their choice in the character, but if Batman were real, I wouldn't agree with him at all.

Drazar
24th Sep 2009, 09:54
Thing is Batman already put himself above the law, he became a vigilante but he has no right to kill and i'm sure he wouldn't wish to work for the goverment even if he would gain the allowance to kill people.

Captain America for example doesn't kill either until its necessary, tho Batman has never needed to do that and even when he decided to break his rule on guns to poison the dark god Darkseid, he did it with a joke and hence he died with inner peace. (Thus he can't be resurrected as a Black Lantern)

So yeah there are alot of questions on what Batman does. If Bruce would just support the world with his money, there would still be corruption and whatnot, not to mention him as Batman he sees the streets of Gotham and actually does buy stuff from slum areas. Such as an old factory that he can reopen, he won't earn any money from it, but he gives people a chance for jobs and thus he makes Gotham happy. :)

Hylden said the things very nicely. You can respect it in the DC but in real world, it would be a really big surprise if people like Joker would live so long. =S I mean i'm not saying Batman would kill him, but some nutcase would use a gun to take himdown for sure.

Craggle
24th Sep 2009, 10:18
There are a few villains that seem to have reformed: Riddler as mentioned up thread, Man Bat, Harley Quinn, in the animated series Arnold Wesker seemed likely to "recover" from Scarface. I think there are a number of times in various formats where Poison Ivy has been persuaded to side with "good" for the promise of conservation money from Bruce Wayne, Mr Freeze comes close to reforming in various media when Batman saves his wife or assists in the search for a cure, not to mention about half of the "bat family" seems to have started out as allies of the League of Assassins. There's plenty of cases of reformation or at least indications of potential in Batman's rogue gallery, all of which would be lost if they were originally put to death.

In cases of the Joker, I imagine that the doctors at Arkham are one of the leading voices to keep him alive due to his nature: as indicated in the patient tapes in the game, he so far defies classification of his psychosis and anyone who properly diagnoses and cures him would most certainly make their career and probably turn it into a multi-million dollar oportunity.

Some are surprising to not get the death sentance though: Scarecrow, despite his perchant for costume, appears to be sane and totally evil, Penguin is nothing more than a basic criminal with some disfiguration, the same as Black Mask. I actually doubt that Batman would get involved if these criminals were sent to the chair or the gas chamber (as long as it was for their actual crimes), but Batman isn't judge, jury, and executioner: his job is to deliver them to be dealt with by the justice system. If he goes as far as killing, he becomes a criminal himself, or at the very least, would have to stand trial to prove it as "justifiable manslaughter".

Old_BenKenobi
24th Sep 2009, 15:15
Hylden said the things very nicely. You can respect it in the DC but in real world, it would be a really big surprise if people like Joker would live so long. =S I mean i'm not saying Batman would kill him, but some nutcase would use a gun to take himdown for sure.

Of course, you could say the same for Batman as well. In the real world he wouldn't last nearly as long.

vuviper
24th Sep 2009, 16:13
Hello

I recommend that you watch the movie 'The dark knight' by Cristopher Nolan.
In this movie Batman's moral code is nicely explained.
While Joker is always totally unreliable and has no rules, Batman has rules.
When Batman, in the end of the movie, tells a lie, that he is responsible for the murders committed by Harvey Dent/Two face, this is in order to keep the faith of ordinary people in goodness. Harvey Dent must not fail. He was Gotmans white knight.
So Batman tells a lie, breaks his moral code, but this lie is necessary in service of a higher good - this little lie is done for the sake of all the inhabitants of Gotham's faith in a moral code at all.
So my point is: Joker has no rules. Batman has rules, but can break the rules if this is necessary for - in the long term - applying to the rules.


Joe:)

He never said lying is against his rules, actually I'm pretty sure lying is one of his rules.

vuviper
24th Sep 2009, 20:05
If batman ever killed, he might as well join Rhas, if you can justify killing 1 person to save 10 or even 100 you can justify killing 4-5 billion to protect the future of the planet and our species, which would account for many many billions through the generations

KillerCroc
24th Sep 2009, 20:14
If batman ever killed, he might as well join Rhas, if you can justify killing 1 person to save 10 or even 100 you can justify killing 4-5 billion to protect the future of the planet and our species, which would account for many many billions through the generations It really depends on your perspective. I'm not saying it's right, but I'm not saying it's wrong. Some of the maniacs, Joker, Zsasz, and Killer Croc personally I think should be put down if I was a real person in Gotham. However, others like Harley Quinn, Bane, Posion Ivy and some others have an ounce of hope.

Old_BenKenobi
24th Sep 2009, 21:07
It really depends on your perspective. I'm not saying it's right, but I'm not saying it's wrong. Some of the maniacs, Joker, Zsasz, and Killer Croc personally I think should be put down if I was a real person in Gotham. However, others like Harley Quinn, Bane, Posion Ivy and some others have an ounce of hope.

I agree.

However, it's pretty clear why Batman doesn't kill. He's afraid he'll find a way to justify another killing and slip down into madness. Joker, Zsasz and Croc should be put down just because Arkham can't hold them. But if Arkham was actually competent, then they wouldn't have been able to kill so many people, they'd have been locked up since their first bust.

I think that's why they haven't been killed. People can say "oh, but they can escape at will!", but then the burden is on Arkham to fix up their hospital, instead of killing the inmates.

vuviper
24th Sep 2009, 23:09
would people that want batman to kill approve of jason todd, choppin of heads of mob lieutenants and shooting all the criminals?