Batman vs Punisher philosophy debate

[Last1oftheJedi]

While on another one of the forums I frequent, I came across an intresting question. It was strange to me at first it would be there, since it is a conspiracy site, dealing with everything Dale Gribble would take intrest in, you understand. A poster offered an intresting thread idea about the philosphies of the Batman and the Punisher. This is it, c/ped:

"This thread is about Vigilante philosophy and who is right about killing criminals not about who would win in a fight

Batman or Punisher

Lets start with there motives both are consumed by revenge and hatred of criminals and both are driven by tragedy having there family members killed right in front of them the only difference is there tactics Batman believes that by killing criminals he is just as bad as them the punisher believes that the only way to save the innocent is to shoot them on sight he he also has a thing against people who prey on women and children

Another thing to be noted is That while Batman fights a continuing war with the joker witch results in joker Constantly breaking out of Arkam Asylum and killing innocent lives in an endless cycle Punisher would just kill him on site and saving many Innocent people I also think its because Batman and joker need each outer Like Tom and Jerry So that is somthing to Consiter And if Bats Killed the criminals of his city woud its residents be safer? Or woud killing them let the criminals win?

So tell Me what You guys think who is right about killing Criminals Batman Or Punisher?"

I asked Sharp about it, as I didn't wish to cause anymore contraversy on the threads. Here's what he had to say:

"Regarding your question - that's a tricky one. I'm sure there's a place for it, but I'm not 100% sure it's Rumbles. However, it's MORE Rumbles than anywhere else save perhaps the Community Board, which deals in stuff like politics and philosophy on a regular basis.

If you wanted to put it up on Rumbles, that would be fine, so long as things didn't get heated. They could, through no fault of your own; philosophical discussions have no real 'end' to them, and there's no way to 'prove' one way is better than the other. This can lead to some circular arguments, which can lead to heat, which...well, it's pretty obvious where that can go.

No place good.

If things DO get heated, and it's isolated to one or two posters, likely I would eject them from the thread. If it looks like the whole thread is breaking down, the best thing at that point is to close it. Just to let you know. If the thing DOES get closed due to that sort of problem, it has nothing to do with you (unless, of course, you're part of the heat!).

Anyway, if you want to put it up, go ahead. Might want to note that you asked me somewhere, so any other moderators are aware of that and don't just think 'this belongs somewhere else'."

So, as long as we can all just state our opinions without tearing down eachother, it looks like a go, right? Coolies in my opinion, and speaking of which, here was mine on the subject:

"Batman stated in Red Hood the reason for his "no kill" rule. "It would be too damn easy". He states there wasn't a day he didn't think about just losing it, and taking Joker out once and for all. But if he did, he would be just like Joker, willing to kill over nothing more than his decision that "You don't deserve to live." Then he's not only like Joker, but Joe Cool, the guy who shot his parents.

Batman stands as a symbol of hope, that one can overcome evil, and not have to lower one's self to becoming a murderer. Because of his past, I think we can all see why Bats feels the way he does.

Is Punisher's methods more perminate? Sure. Would alot of Gothamites like to see that style of justice so they didn't have to worry about the next costumed clown coming along and killing them? I bet there's a few.

That being said, I agree with Batman, because anyone can just kill you with a gun, but it takes a true super-hero to endure the tide. And it's not like those deaths caused by his rogue gallery don't haunt him every night. But instead of giving up, or becoming something more violent, he maintains his vigil. Creating a legend amongst the scum of Gotham that keeps them looking over their shoulder any time they start breaking the law. Only the most looney don't fear Bats, and they would've been sociopathic killers weither he was there or not.

A final point, since we're talking about super-heroes here, a comic super-hero shouldn't be a killer like that. Though, I agree, it works with Frank [Punisher] and Blade and the like. They live in a darker type of story. A realier world so to speak.

But IMHO, that's why Batman is so popular as a hero in the culture, because he doesn't take the easy way out."

[Dr Will Hatch]

Batman pretty much destroyed all "normal" crime in Gotham, which is why his Rogue's Gallery is filled with freaks and monsters instead of gangsters. Frank has never wiped all of the lower level crime in NYC. I'd say, based on that, that Batman was more successful.

As for who has the better philosophy? Not sure. They're both absolutely crazy, but I think Frank takes too much pleasure out of torturing and killing people. They may say they do, but no normal person would want a vigilante going around starting firefights and killing criminals. And especially not someone as psychotic as The Punisher. Batman is proof that people with absolute ideals and integrity exist, and no matter his faults, I admire his way of thinking much more.

[mailedbypostman1]

On a purely "versus" level, I'd say that Frank is less inclined to talk with his mouth.

[Deadman25]

I can see this turning into a political debate by the next 2 pages.

[Last1oftheJedi]

I can see this turning into a political debate by the next 2 pages.

I honestly hope not, I was really just trying to put up a thought provoking idea. I mean, it wasn't even mine, I just thought it was a cool concept, who has the better idea on how to handle crime, Batman or Punisher. This is in no way intended to start fires. Believe me when I say I'm done with fire starting, as unintentinal as it may have been.

Please can we keep this civil (And it has been so far ^.^) ? I don't want this to devolve into a fight, it's just a thought provoking question, nothing more.

[dbcb314]

I am more inclined with Frank's but it has one big problem IMO...

If Frank loses and dies... he solved nothing really. The mega criminals would replace each other and life would go on.

Batman, on the other hand, with his methods, is really trying to make it so Gotham is the one doing the punishing. Gotham is the one deciding these guys fates. He is kind of teaching the city to fend for itself. If he died, Gotham would have still learned something and could carrry on some of his philosophies without him.

But to be honest.. you need a mixture. If Batman were to say "enough" and kill a couple of people like the Joker, it would make the other criminals pause for a second and ask themselves if doing this is worth their life because the Bat can snap. Right now... there is no consequence. Get beat up a bit, end up in jail, get out later via breaking out or technicality in court. pretty dumb.

[Kickitlikeajedi]

Well put. I like your quotes.

[Guy Smiley]

In Punisher's case, he's probably wrong. Not because he kills, but because he's not being very careful about who he kills. His very first appearance was in a Spider-Man comic, where he was easily tricked into going after Spidey. The problem inherent in execution-style vigilantism is that it risks injustice by offing an innocent person. Bringing them in for investigation, trial, and sentencing supposedly minimizes that risk, so even in a country where the death penalty is legal, it might be considered to be more just to avoid killing criminals.

But what if the Punisher could be assured that every person he killed was not only guilty, but deserving of said execution? Or what if he wasn't a vigilante, but a fully legalized operative? Folks'd probably want to reason this out based on a couple of parameters:
1) Is killing inherently wrong?
2) Would killing people have a negative impact on society?

The first is a moral question. A religious person might consider life to be inherently sacred, while an atheist might or might not consider life itself to be intrinsically valueless, but the qualities of the person might provide that value. (i.e. in his eyes, it would depend on if the person was worth sparing, based on their actions.) These are pretty subjective, so people are going to disagree on this and just have to live with it.

The second is a matter of pragmatism. Would criminals decide that if they were being shot instead of imprisoned, that they would have noting to lose by being as brutal as possible to escape justice? Would people commit fewer crimes due to the nature of the punishment? A combination of both? (Fewer, but more hardened criminals) Unfortunately, most of us only have speculation to go on, here, so it's hard to make a concrete argument either way.

Anyways, I'd say if I had a vigilante or a police force running around, and I hadn't committed any crimes, I'd want them to arrest me, not shoot me, if they suspected I had broken the law. But, I'm relatively okay with a death sentence for harsher crimes, so long as the risk of being convicted despite actual innocence is relatively small.