Amph ITT...I'm Batman (Discussion)

I think you miss the point.

Firstly; the death penalty is the domain of savages, and if you believe otherwise please review the countries which employ it besides the US. Illustrious company you wish to keep.

But, politics aside, there's been a theme through the comics which Nolan's films also covered; namely, escalation. I think it's in TDKR where Wolper, on one of the TV segments, suggests Batman creates his enemies - that's perhaps the most extreme version of the theme but it basically says Gotham attracts these criminals to it. If the Joker is killed, there's nothing to suggest that someone else wouldn't fill the role he currently fills.

So, a petty, infantile and base urge to get revenge on criminals gets sated yet Gotham is no better off.

 

And continuing to let thousands die is how civilized people live. Honestly kill Joker, people live. Don't kill Joker people die. The first option is the domain of sadists and barbarians. The second is of rational minds and those who care about their fellow man. There is no doubt of the Joker's guilt, there is no 'what if were wrong?!' argument to deflect the issue.

Yes another wanabee might show up, but whose to say he'll be as effective as the Joker? And who is to say they won't show up anyway even if the Joker doesn't die? Killing Joker ends one threat with the possiblity of others coming. Not killing Joker continues one massive threat with the possibilities of others coming. The solution that presents the greatest benefit to Gotham is the first.

So say you. Reality says differently. You kill Joker he can't kill anymore people. Your argument flies in the face of all reason and rationality and is an utter absurdity of the highest order. You claim executing the Joker is simple revenge. It is not, had the Joker not escaped EVERY time he has been incarcerated it would not be needed. But since keeping Joker incarcerated is impossible what option remains other than executing him? The life of the Joker is not more valuable than the lives of the people of Gotham.

 

Yeah, it's TDKR that first raised that point. Although Wolper isn't all that great a source-it's his naivety that leads to the Joker murdering at least a few dozen people on the David Letterman show later on, after all. Course, TDKR also shows that just killing these people isn't the answer, as Batman ultimately tries to force himself to murder the Joker and can't.

 

Yeah but it's not Batman's job to deliver justice. He catches the bad guys, it's Gotham's fault for refusing to act.

 

Mmm...going with no. It's been a long time, comics-wise, since the Gotham City administration was hopelessly corrupt and indifferent to voters or public opinion; and given that Gotham is almost certainly the most important city in whichever state it's supposed (economically with Wayne Enterprises, and population-wise as 18 million folks live there) to be in it'd be odd for the death penalty to not be in effect unless Gotham doesn't want it.

It's not just the city administration that doesn't kill these folks; it's the city populace as well. Two-Face isn't obviously as horrible as the Joker is, but he's hardly a saint either, and Gotham's been quite willing to not try and murder him during his occasional non-insane times.

 

I agree. If Gotham really wanted Joker dead he'd be dead. The fact that the are willing to suffer him boggles the mind but there it is. Unless he kills so many people all the new residents think 'well surely it isn't so bad' before being killed and replaced by new ones going 'well surely it isn't so bad'

 

I'm glad Boba brought up the bit about Batman not being able to bring himself to kill the Joker; the Joker's response to that was priceless.

But in non-Elseworlds continuity, Hush had the best discussion about this that I can recall. I think it was issue 6 or 7 of the arc where Batman emerges from the opera to find Joker holding a smoking gun over the body of Bruce's childhood friend, Tommy Elliott (of course, there's more to it but...). Batman proceeds to beat the snot out of the Joker with the intent of finally killing him. Selina tries to stop him, but can't. Jim Gordon does, by saying the second Batman crosses the line he's no different from any of the rogues gallery in the GCPD's eyes (and in Gordon's eyes).

There's a decency to the acts of these people in not killing the Joker (and yes, the Joker cynically exploits this). But I'm also convinced an executed Joker would firstly undermine the entire moral authority of the Gotham legal system (the insanity plea being overruled for public bloodlust); and secondly simply create a vacuum that would be violently filled by another mass killer. So what exactly would be achieved here?

 

Batman shouldn't kill people. He doesn't have the authority. GCPD can, the government can, but Batman can't and shouldn't. So Gordon was right for stopping him.

What exactly would be achieved? It would achieve the Joker not killing any more people.

Also 'undermine the entire moral authority of the Gotham legal system' when did it ever have any moral authority to begin with?

 

Since Ms. Falcone murdered most of the really rotten people involved in it.

Since this is more of a general Batman discussion thread now, something I said earlier made me think:

Given these things, how does the basic premise of No Man's Land make much sense at all? Was Luthor behind all of the post-quake conspiracy stuff? I can't imagine an economic powerhouse like Gotham City just getting written off because 'it's too hard'.

 

General, I'm again doubting you've read as much Batman as you'd like us to believe. Year One and Batman Begins are not accurate reflections of the GCPD, or Gotham city administration.

My recollection of No Man's Land was that Lex drove the "write off" because he wanted to buy land in Gotham?

 

Hmm...maybe. Been awhile since I read through it all.

And yeah-Year One/BB are supposed to show Gotham at it's absolute worst, not the status quo. The epilogue to Bruce Wayne: Fugitive? is far and away the best look I've found at how Gotham City actually is when there isn't a major story arc going on.

 

Isn't the real sticking point in the "killing Joker" quandary the fact that modern Batman stories are so inexplicably dark and violent? Back in the O'Neil 70s era, no one questioned Batman's moral code, even when villains such as the Joker did in fact kill their prey.

But look what happened in the mid 80s. Suddenly, the Joker is slaughtering people by the hundreds, bludgeoning kid sidekicks to death with crowbars, paralyzing and stripping other kid sidekicks. In the face of this brutality, Batman's nobility is diminished. Rather than serving as Gotham's haunted yet noble dark knight, he comes across as a self-righteous schmuck, condemning the city to perpetual chaos and destruction.

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with the comic book industry when its writers, who seem inclined to penning scripts to SAW sequels, are churning out such gruesome material in mainstream superhero titles? Why should a Batman issue be a hair's breadth from garnering a "Mature Audience-only" rating?


On edit: If anyone's interested, I believe that the tone of mainstream Batman comics should range between PG to a mild PG-13. Anything darker should be reserved for graphic novels, where the events exist in a vacuum and NOT leak back into canon (e.g., Barbara's Killing Joke shooting).

 

To be fair, that's hardly happened with the frequency you describe and perhaps the point of the Killing Joke was lost on you?

Firstly; Frank Miller was the genesis of the really bloody Batman stories, not Alan Moore. And Miller regrets doing that to Batman to the extent that it made "dark, brooding" heroes the norm (See also: Wolverine).

Secondly; Killing Joke was exploring the theory that all that stood between ordinary people and a Joker-esque criminal is one really bad day - i.e. is one bad day is enough to tip someone over the edge?

Thirdly; Death in the Family had more to it that just the Joker's wanton violence (I mean, Superman! Inhaling laughing gas at the UN!). Jason was a ****, and moreover his death was foreshadowed in TKDR. Getting him out of the picture added a lot of depth to the Batman character.

Plus, Under the Red Hood did a great job of delving deeper into this.

 

I honestly thought I had gone into the Gun Control thread, so I started reading and I was like, "Ah, I see the subject has no expanded to the death penalty!" And then I was like, "Why are they all using Batman as their argument?"

 

First, The Dark Knight Returns was a one-shot Elseworlds-style tale, so it shouldn't have foreshadowed anything in canon.

Secondly, there were plenty of ways to write Jason Todd out of continuity without having him bludgeoned and blown up. What a crass stunt that was. (O'Neil, to his credit, has expressed regret.)

Third, I don't think Todd's death added any depth to Batman. In fact, it made his character all the more unsympathetic, leading one to wonder just why this irresponsible SOB was recruiting children to fight psychopaths and gangsters.

 

1) Thank you for informing me that TDKR was an Elseworlds taste. I had only made this point roughly 60 times already.

2) Have you read Death in the Family? There are scenes in which a) Batman considers killing the Joker, b) Superman calls Batman on it, c) Alfred is concerned about Bruce's wellbeing and suggests he asks Dick for help in going after the Joker at the UN, d) some CIA or military type guy tries to warn Batman off the case because he's too close to it and it could cause a diplomatic incident.

But no, you're right. Batman still having Jason Todd's costume on display in the Batcave is signs of a less sympathetic Batman. Uh huh.

 

Fine. Then don't make the claim that this Elseworlds tale somehow foreshadows the death of Jason Todd. It doesn't, anymore than Kingdom Come foreshadows the killing of Lois Lane at the hands of the Joker.

And then, of course, the writer cops out by contriving a situation wherein Batman doesn't have to make a moral choice: the Joker's helicopter crashes into the sea.

A sympathetic Batman would have sworn never to put a child in harm's way again. But instead, he brings in Robin #3, Tim Drake. Hopefully, the kid has to finish his Cheerios before he can go fight carved-up-smile Joker and the Mad Hatter, now rendered a pedophile.

My stance: An adolescent Robin has no place in the dreary mythos of modern Batman. Either lighten the material up, or stick with the adult Dick Grayson.

 

Sigh.

Do you not recall the scene in TKDR when they explicitly refer to Jason Todd's death?

That's understood to have played a part in the decision to kill, not write out, Jason.

 

Wasn't Drake kidnapped by Joker and turned into some crazy clown-child in the Batman of the Future movie (Return of the Joker)? Drake ended up killing Joker with one of his own novelty devices as I recall (something Batman wasn't prepared to do).

Obviously that is seperate from the comics reality, but it seems like Batman isn't very good at keeping his friends and allies safe all of the time. But hey the guy isn't perfect and shouldn't be depicted as though he is. Flawed heroes tend to be the most interesting ones.

 

Tim had Joker DNA implanted in him which turned him into the Joker in that film, IIRC.

 

Yeah, that's more or less what happened.

 

Which is why it fails.

 

YMMV-I honestly liked the story and Timm & Co were finally allowed to show some blood, but yeah, the DNA thing was strange. Course, Batman Beyond was always fairly out there with it's villains, and IMO suffered from Terry still being in high school-I generally felt annoyed when some radioactive monster threatened the damn school yet again

 

Yet TDKR's Elseworlds status played no part in the decision, apparently. Curious.

 

Hey look, Arawn is adding no value again!

I'm assuming I'm not the first person to have said this to you.