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
Quote:
This makes zero sense. Durakken, do you read your posts before you hit reply?| Yet another problem is that the DC heroes have effectively formed a separate government and as such one could argue that as a citizen of America Joker and the other various villains are actually patriots that are engaging in a war against a foreign power.... and it could also be seen that Batman has diplomatic immunity as an ambassador of some sort. |
There is no evidence to support the idea that superheroes have formed their own government. Batman is a vigilante according to any form of authority you want to name. Even with Gordon watching his back, if the police ever caught him, he'd be thrown into Arkham with the rest of the costumed loonies, and there'd be no law to keep him out.
Loose --> not tight.
Lose --> Did not win, misplace, cannot find, subtract.
One extra 'o' makes a big difference.
Quote:
I just couldn't tell from your post whether you were agreeing with me or not.|
Originally Posted by Eisregen_NA
Yes. That would fall under the exception I outlined. The exception doesn't apply to Bats himself cause you know he can dodge bullets and stuff, but a normal police officer or soldier faced with an armed assailant, and without a Batman around to pull their *** out of the fire would likely have to shoot the other guy if they wanted to survive. Batman is not Gandhi or Jesus after all; peaceful resistance is not on his agenda, nor is turning the other cheek.
|
o.O
- CaptainFoamerang
Silverspar on Kelly Hu: A face that could melt paint off the wall *shivers*
Someone play my AE arc! "The Heart of Statesman" ID: 343405
Quote:
One of my relatives were committed by a medical practitioner a few years back without a trial... so either missed that one or different rules apply to medical practitioners... or someone did something illegal. But yeah not anyone can commit someone else, but a good number of people can make the attempt and be fairly successful.|
Originally Posted by Olantern
You've got it backward. Under American law, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees them due process rights before being deprived of their liberty by being involuntarily committed. People who may be committed can't be "checked in by anyone" precisely because they lose pretty much all rights once committed.
Instead, in order to be committed to an institution involuntarily, someone must initiate a court proceeding for commitment. In a situation like the Joker's, as I implied in my last post, that would be the state, represented by a subdivision of the District Attorney's office that handles such cases exclusively. In other cases, it might be a relative who cannot care for the person the relative wants committed. (I believe the state will still present the case for commitment even if it's being urged by a private party, but I'm not certain. This is fairly far outside my area of expertise.) The person threatened with commitment will present the case against it. I'm not too familiar with the legal standard applied in these cases, though I believe that you're right that it's whether the person is a danger to himself or others. The party seeking commitment will be the burdened party in a case like this. By the way, for a fairly realistic example of what how a case like this might be litigated, see the original (1948) version of Miracle on 34th Street. Note how in that case, an Assitant D.A. is one arguing commitment, and the case is styled State v. Kringle. You might be surprised. In many places, attorneys (and sometimes law students acting under attorney supervision) provide pro bono representation to individuals under threat of commitment as part of programs administered by the courts. In other places, I believe these cases are handled by public defender's offices. The person who may be committed can hire a private attorney if he has the funds available. And, of course, the person can always choose to represent himself. Given that the Joker's pockets contain only "knives and lint," according to The Dark Knight, he probably receives pro bono representation through either a public defender's office or an attorney assigned by the court. Judging from what I know of regular, criminal cases involving infamous defendants, the court probably appoints his representative with extraordinary care, seeking someone with a great deal of expertise, either a very experienced litigator who has handled many commitment cases or a law professor specializing in the law of commitment (and probably criminal law as well). Of course, the Joker isn't noted for sensible decisions, so he might chose to represent himself, which is likely to result in a pretty short hearing. |
Joker in most cannon is wealthy (or has a good sum of money) and it's only the Nolan verse that he isn't...so he could afford a lawyer...
Also apparently according to B:LotDK - Going Sane arc Joker had two outings after both of which he was thought dead be everyone involved and wasn't captured till a third outing after kidnapping a council woman and going on a killing spree in one of the safest neighborhoods of Gotham and then almost killing Batman, thinking he did, he had plastic surgery done and took up the name Joseph Kerr and lived a relatively normal life with amnesia of past events...
That is when his trial would have been held and any point after that would have been moor until he was officially released from Arkham which he never was.
As far as the Supers becoming essentially their own nation. The Justice League is sometimes referred to as a 5th estate and acts many times as a foreign power through out many cannons...so I'd after to say that there is some legal doctrine in place for "vigilantes"
But Gotham as far as I can tell seems to be unaffected by the rest the world and at one was considered a No Man's Land where in Gotham was pretty much sealed off and considered a separate government all together to a degree.
Also Gotham and the DC US should have fairly similar laws to reality's US and New York as that is what Gotham was based on.
Quote:
If they weren't his sidekick, they'd just be off crimefighting without him.
|
Originally Posted by Comeuppance
If anything, Bats should be held responsible for endangering the lives of his "sidekicks".
|
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection
What has me wondering is why no normal person has taken a shotgun to the Joker and claimed self defense.
The man is crazy, he can do any kind of horrible thing at any time anywhere. If that does not put "me and mine" in mortal danger and makes grounds for at least a court trial to see if it´s self defense i don´t know what would. And i seriously doubt any jurry would convict the person.
Hm, would make an interesting "Elseworld" story i think.
Quote:
someone did try something similar, it was behind the whole Last Laugh crossover, where a guard at the Slab lied to the Joker and told him he had cancer and was going to die in a few weeks. a pretty amusing trick despite what happened.|
Originally Posted by Crosshairs
What has me wondering is why no normal person has taken a shotgun to the Joker and claimed self defense.
|
as for some normal folk wanting to take down the Joker. Think the closest ive seen was Petit during the NML or Gordon when he actually shot out Joker's knee. but then, in the DCU, the 'normal people' usually end up being the first or the gruesomest victims.
Quote:
There was the episode in the animated series where the Joker owned this one guy for cutting him off in traffic. He goes into witness protection, but the Joker still finds him as he calls the guy his hobby. He later then threatens blow him up to get free of the Joker's grip, as the Joker didn't want to die at the hands of a nobody.
|
Originally Posted by Veritech
someone did try something similar, it was behind the whole Last Laugh crossover, where a guard at the Slab lied to the Joker and told him he had cancer and was going to die in a few weeks. a pretty amusing trick despite what happened.
as for some normal folk wanting to take down the Joker. Think the closest ive seen was Petit during the NML or Gordon when he actually shot out Joker's knee. but then, in the DCU, the 'normal people' usually end up being the first or the gruesomest victims. |
- Justice
Lastjustice- lvl 50 defender
Leader of Eternal Vigilance.
- Freedom
Lastjudgment - lvl 50 corruptor
Member of V.A.M.P.
Beware:NERDS ARE THE WORST FANS!!
Quote:
Somehow, I doubt that. And what might have been doesn't excuse his endangerment of children.
|
Originally Posted by BrandX
If they weren't his sidekick, they'd just be off crimefighting without him.
|
"They've got us surrounded again, the poor bastards." - General Creighton W. Abrams
Quote:
yes, because on top of everything else illegal the Batman is doing, he's real concerned about the legal implications of risking the lives of his sidekicks.
|
Originally Posted by Comeuppance
Somehow, I doubt that. And what might have been doesn't excuse his endangerment of children.
|
Quote:
Sounds like the Doctor.|
Originally Posted by Marcian Tobay
the fact that he's so far out there grants him outside thinking that allows him to access strategies most other people can't conceive. He is the dark mirror of Batman: He can win if he doesn't have time to plan.
 |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ebon3
::Raises hand::
If the situation demands it, I'd break the law and murder a villian in cold blood. One could argue that it would make me no different from the vilian I just wasted, but I'd argue in a case like that the results far outweigh whatever legal code or process I would have been bound to (to put things generally) or maybe I've just watched 300 to damn many times |
My take is that while Batman my be an enabler, he not responsible for the Joker's actions. Only Joker is responsible for Joker. Batman may make things worse, but if Batman didn't exist, I think the Joker would have found some other hero to latch on too.
Also if you put Batman to task for Joker, you would have to put every hero to task. Superman should be able to stop the Joke with no problem, yet he doesn't.
Quote:
Comic books are serious business, yo.
|
Originally Posted by Comeuppance
Somehow, I doubt that. And what might have been doesn't excuse his endangerment of children.
|
total kick to the gut
This is like having Ra's Al Ghul show up at your birthday party.
I think the Spectre already answered this question, and said no.
Spectre has no problem punishing murderers, however, and even he can't (and won't) judge the Joker.
http://www.seventhsanctum.com/index-anim.php
Can't come up with a name? Click the link!
Can't come up with a name? Click the link!
Quote:
This is generally true of nearly every philosophy book ever written. |
Originally Posted by Marcian Tobay
At least two-three chapters used their chosen question to avoid the actual question and give a basic introduction of Utilitarianism.
|
In the Animated Series, it's all for the lulz.
As for the animated Joker, there's definitely more to him, but it's only ever hinted at IIRC.
Winston Churchill