Can Batman be held responsible for the Joker's murders?
By
Agonus,
Posted on: 2010-08-12 10:37 in Comic and Hero-Villain Culture
http://www.amazon.com/Batman-Philoso...1634838&sr=8-1
Chapter 1: Why doesn't the Batman kill the Joker?
Chapter 6: The Joker's Wild: Can we hold the Clown Prince morally responsible?
That's actually where I got this question. I have that book. Just wanted to see everyone's reactions. 
Actually, the public at large would be to blame. As much as I dislike Batman (and his groupies that believe he can "prep" his way to victory with every foe), it's the bleeding heart mentality that keeps murderers from getting what they deserve, not only in the comics, but in real life.
And I think Batman secretly has a man-crush on The Joker.
"They've got us surrounded again, the poor bastards." - General Creighton W. Abrams
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Marcian Tobay
So... when the Joker kills a thousand people, Batman insists on arresting him and giving him a "fair" trial.
|
No, he doesn't. Batman insists on stopping Joker and handing him over to the authorities, who arrest him and give him a fair trial. I'm sure Batman would be fine with it if they gave Joker the death sentance or at least locked him up properly and forever.
Quote:
| Batman is the only person able to stop the Joker (Cops be gettin' nerfed in comic worlds, yo). |
Quote:
| Additionally, the insanity defense consistently finds the Laughing Lunatic virtually immune to any legal system repercussions. This binds the hands of every Law Enforcement Official in the Bat-verse. |
If Batman is to blame, then all those people are to blame much more.
Always remember, we were Heroes.
Batman is no more to blame for a repeat offense as any cop who captures a felon who gets out on parole and does another crime.
This means not at all to blame. It is other portions of the system which are accountable.
Too many alts to list.
Quote:
There was a story arc where Batman tried to stop an assassination attempt on The Joker.|
Originally Posted by Dr_Darkspeed
Batman is the only one able to stop the Joker, but once he has been stopped, he is certainly not the only one who can kill the Joker. Once he is unconcious/handcuffed/straight jacketted, those officals could just shoot Joker in the head. Clerks could stab him with a pen, judges could just leap the bench and smash his skull with their gavels. Pretty much anyone in the system could have killed Joker multiple times. Through legal or illegal means. If Batman is to blame, then all those people are to blame much more. |
Now, I am not sure if it was because The Joker was wrongfully accused of a crime and they were going to fry him, or if someone said they were out for Mr. J or if those were two separate arcs, or what have you, but Batman has actively prevented Joker's death before.
"Ben is short for Frank."
-Baffling Beer-Man, The Tenacious 3: The Movie
[IMG]http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa10/BafflingBeerman/teamjackface1.jpg[/IMG]
Quote:
This is my answer to your question Marcian. To hold Batman responsible for the crimes that Joker commits is equivalent to making a police officer an accomplice for the crimes committed by a criminal he arrested.|
Originally Posted by Comeuppance
Actually, the public at large would be to blame...
|
I'm not sure what kind of legal system Gotham has but to me it's very reckless and a lazy one. From what I read in the comics Gotham's laws seem more about making it someone else's problem vs. actually addressing and fixing it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BafflingBeerMan
There was a story arc where Batman tried to stop an assassination attempt on The Joker.
Now, I am not sure if it was because The Joker was wrongfully accused of a crime and they were going to fry him, or if someone said they were out for Mr. J or if those were two separate arcs, or what have you, but Batman has actively prevented Joker's death before. |
However when the Joker has gotten fair trials he ends up back in Arkham, and once again it leads to the real culprit, Gotham's legal system.
Paragon Unleashed Forums
Twitter: @Alpha_Ryvius
He'd be responsible if he was the one behind breaking Joker out every time.
Batman does not kill. There is a reason for this and it is expressed beautifully in a story about James Gordon. The story where he is shot and people think it's Catwoman who did it. It comes down to the fact that the police have been given a sacred trust. Batman has not.
On the other hand... there is a slight problem... if Batman was not around Joker would have been killed long ago. Batman literally stops Joker from being killed because he stops Joker and thus the Police would act illegally if they shot the Joker.
So if you look at it that way then sure Batman is at fault to a certain extent...
But then again, part of the social contract is that we want to be treated fairly and as such it becomes a matter for the courts and prison system. He obviously is insane. The courts can do nothing but put him back in the asylum and from there well from what I've seen of Arkham in the comics they don't treat their patients properly. At this point Joker should have been heavily sedated and strapped down. This is not the case though so...
If we follow all this to it's conclusion it is largely the fault of Arkham and the lack of making sure they follow proper procedures, and not experimental nonsense, that is the cause of Joker's repeated attacks...
Quote:
no.|
Originally Posted by Marcian Tobay
Can we blame Batman for not killing him in any of this nonsense?
|
this has been another edition of simple answers to silly questions. =P
The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.
My City Was Gone
Quote:
If the police were executing a warrant and were attacked, or defending themselves or citizens from one of Joker's schemes, they'd be completely covered and within their rights to put a bullet in his brain pan, assuming there's no Batman to stop him.| On the other hand... there is a slight problem... if Batman was not around Joker would have been killed long ago. Batman literally stops Joker from being killed because he stops Joker and thus the Police would act illegally if they shot the Joker. |
Batman thinks he can help rehabilitate every criminal. It's the only reason he hasn't offed any of the more violent ones and allows them to keep going back to the revolving door that is Arkham.
Loose --> not tight.
Lose --> Did not win, misplace, cannot find, subtract.
One extra 'o' makes a big difference.
Quote:
Why are there quotes around the word fair?
|
Originally Posted by Marcian Tobay
So... when the Joker kills a thousand people, Batman insists on arresting him and giving him a "fair" trial.
|
An opinion my friend gave over the phone:
"Of course! Then again, we all know Batman's mentally ill, so give him a pass and move on with the story."
Quote:
Because everyone knows the Gotham court system is bought out by the Mob, or mind-controlled by some powerful psychic, and the police rolls are filled with dirty badges.
|
Originally Posted by TrueGentleman
Why are there quotes around the word fair?
|
Loose --> not tight.
Lose --> Did not win, misplace, cannot find, subtract.
One extra 'o' makes a big difference.
Joining the "No" chorus. Whoever is in charge of keeping him locked up in Arkham bears some responsibility though. But the comic would be dull if Bruce invested in a system there to actually prevent the Joker (or fill in other enemy) from escaping ever again.
total kick to the gut
This is like having Ra's Al Ghul show up at your birthday party.
Quote:
Do you recommend it? Is it written well?
|
Originally Posted by Marcian Tobay
That's actually where I got this question. I have that book. Just wanted to see everyone's reactions.
|
total kick to the gut
This is like having Ra's Al Ghul show up at your birthday party.
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feLCpfGniz8|
Originally Posted by Comeuppance
And I think Batman secretly has a man-crush on The Joker.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SwellGuy
Joining the "No" chorus. Whoever is in charge of keeping him locked up in Arkham bears some responsibility though. But the comic would be dull if Bruce invested in a system there to actually prevent the Joker (or fill in other enemy) from escaping ever again.
|
Quote:
please don't split up sentences that are not split up.|
Originally Posted by White Hot Flash
If the police were executing a warrant and were attacked, or defending themselves or citizens from one of Joker's schemes, they'd be completely covered and within their rights to put a bullet in his brain pan, assuming there's no Batman to stop him.
Batman thinks he can help rehabilitate every criminal. It's the only reason he hasn't offed any of the more violent ones and allows them to keep going back to the revolving door that is Arkham. |
Batman stops the Joker and as such Joker is stopped thus a officer popping him after that point would be illegal.
If Batman did not exist then Joker would not have been stopped and thus an officer popping him would be far more likely.
Of course if we are to believe one of the Joker origin stories... Joker wouldn't exist if Batman didn't exist >.>
Quote:
It's not really about Batman. It's basic philosophy explained in terms that Batman fans can understand. Like, it says "This school of philosophy blames Batman, this one blames the Joker, and the misogynists blame Barbara Gordon." And then it ends.|
Originally Posted by SwellGuy
Do you recommend it? Is it written well?
|
What's annoying is that each chapter was written by a group/single person completely independent of the other chapters. Essentially the story's editor sent a bunch of Batman-esque questions to qualified people and published their answers site unseen. While I understand the merit of that, I stopped halfway through. At least two-three chapters used their chosen question to avoid the actual question and give a basic introduction of Utilitarianism. The redundancy got grating and hurt the presentation.
If you see it and have jingle change, go for it. I wouldn't say to jump out and buy it now, though.
Quote:
Amadeus Arkham or his Grandson... They are both nut balls, but not villains.|
Originally Posted by Gaderath
I dont read comics really, but I have read a few graphic novels, seen all the movies/cartoons/etc, played the game, and it is my understanding that whoever is in charge of Arkham is actually a villain as well...
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SwellGuy
Joining the "No" chorus. Whoever is in charge of keeping him locked up in Arkham bears some responsibility though. But the comic would be dull if Bruce invested in a system there to actually prevent the Joker (or fill in other enemy) from escaping ever again.
|
Quote:
While I take your point, this blanket statement doesn't hold for every one of Batman's eras. The squeaky clean 50s comics and campy 60s TV show obviously never had any of these issues. Even in the Joker's earliest appearances, when he was as murderous as ever but not overly insane and the Batman was a ruthless vigilante, these scenarios do not apply.|
Originally Posted by White Hot Flash
Because everyone knows the Gotham court system is bought out by the Mob, or mind-controlled by some powerful psychic, and the police rolls are filled with dirty badges.
|
I raise this issue since, not having read the philosophical book behind the OP, we need to establish which continuity we're following before we can argue over the ethics of fictional characters.
Quote:
I made it to chap 13. Some of the chapters I found pretty well written and interesting, others less so. Like Marcian said, pretty much every chapter is an essay from another person/group.|
Originally Posted by Marcian Tobay
It's not really about Batman. It's basic philosophy explained in terms that Batman fans can understand. Like, it says "This school of philosophy blames Batman, this one blames the Joker, and the misogynists blame Barbara Gordon." And then it ends.
What's annoying is that each chapter was written by a group/single person completely independent of the other chapters. Essentially the story's editor sent a bunch of Batman-esque questions to qualified people and published their answers site unseen. While I understand the merit of that, I stopped halfway through. At least two-three chapters used their chosen question to avoid the actual question and give a basic introduction of Utilitarianism. The redundancy got grating and hurt the presentation. If you see it and have jingle change, go for it. I wouldn't say to jump out and buy it now, though. |
EDIT: It occurs to me now, I actually borrowed that book, and should probably return it...
Quote:
Amadeus, The Spirit of Arkham, Hugo Strange, The Scarecrow in Batman Begins, etc etc. The list goes on. Lockup? From the cartoon... I'm not sure if that was his name.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
Amadeus Arkham or his Grandson... They are both nut balls, but not villains.
|
EDIT: To make grammatical sense.
Quote:
Besides that, where in Gotham are you going to find 12 people with an impartial view of the Joker to act as a jury? I don't think it's possible for the Joker to get a fair jury trial anywhere in the country|
Originally Posted by White Hot Flash
Because everyone knows the Gotham court system is bought out by the Mob, or mind-controlled by some powerful psychic, and the police rolls are filled with dirty badges.
|
-edit- Ok, maybe in Lancaster PA, with a jury made up of the Amish.
Furio--Lvl 50+3 Fire/Fire/Fire Blaster, Virtue
Megadeth--Lvl 50+3 Necro/DM/Soul MM, Virtue
Veriandros--Lvl 50+3 Crab Soldier, Virtue
"So come and get me! I'll be waiting for ye, with a whiff of the old brimstone. I'm a grim bloody fable, with an unhappy bloody end!" Demoman, TF2
Batman is the only person able to stop the Joker (Cops be gettin' nerfed in comic worlds, yo). Additionally, the insanity defense consistently finds the Laughing Lunatic virtually immune to any legal system repercussions. This binds the hands of every Law Enforcement Official in the Bat-verse.
So... when the Joker kills a thousand people, Batman insists on arresting him and giving him a "fair" trial. This lays the groundwork for the Joker escaping and killing a thousand people.
Can we blame Batman for not killing him in any of this nonsense?
Don't ask this guy.