I thought about this, and was pretty conflicted for a while. On one hand, I understand why he doesn't want to kill, he doesn't want to cross that line. It would be ideal if therapy could indeed be used to help rehabilitate criminals. The problem with the Joker is that, short of messing with his mind like they did with Dr. Light, there doesn't seem to be any therapy that is going to help him.
Even then I was still conflicted, but then I thought about how it would feel if someone close to me ended up dead because Batman had put Joker in jail for the 100th time and Joker had then escaped and killed innocent people for the 100th time. With that in mind, at the end of the day I'd say if you have criminals as bad as Joker..you need to put them down. I'm not saying shoot first and ask questions later. Throw him in jail first, try to get him some therapy to help him. If the jail doesn't hold him for long and therapy has been shown to be useless, then I say kill him. It's one thing to give a person a second chance, but it's entirely different to give that person 50 chances, or 100 chances(at least when the crime is murder).
Basically, it seems like if Batman doesn't kill..then innocent people suffer. Whereas if he does kill, then maybe he snaps and begins executing criminals all the time. I hate to say it, but if it's a choice between innocent people and criminals..well, to me that is no choice at all.
Last edited by Surtur; 05-09-2012 at 01:00 PM.
A woman can move a lot faster with her skirt up than a man can with his pants down.
The Punisher's philosophy is the ideal. If the world had a Punisher operating in every city then the world would be a decent place.
The idea that Batman uses (when he's actually written well), and the main argument about why the death penalty is barbaric, is that punishment is about a) removing harmful elements of society + b) rehabilitation. Not vengeance.
In real life, the only real point of the death penalty is vengeance, for various reasons (life in prison costs less than executing someone/it's proven that even the most heinous criminals can be rehabilitated completely, so there's no guarantee at all on any crime, etc.). And Batman stands against that idea - he only serves to deliver criminals to the law - where he hopes they can be rehabilitated. It just sucks for him that he lives in a comic book where this can never, ever happen.
Also, practically each of his rogue's gallery HAS been rehabilitated at some point before comics forced them back to their normal way of action eventually. Even the Joker, which is the constant source of his pull and tug, has stopped killing people for a while.
The Punisher represents the other side of the equation. That if you do wrong, you will PAY for it - it's the basic fire and brimstone mentality pushed to direct retribution. His stance isn't about the public, it's about revenge only.
So it really is a war of ideals between the two of them.
I've always held to the idea that if you kill person A, then a even worse person B might replace them. So many choose to deal with the situation that holds the fewest consequences. Frank however is mostly facing humans, Batman is facing psychopaths and metas. In both universe I believe the government is corrupt and inept, but that serves to move the story along. When you have psychos that decide... oh it's monday, I hate mondays, think I'll go on a murder spree today, or the Raft blowing up every other week, or someone released escaping Arkham every week, it's the plot. I can only think that Batman still has faith in the justice system, where Frank has accepted it's failure.
You can also think, ya Joker is brilliant, when he snaps out of his funky monkey coma Batman knows he's going to help mankind and cure cancer and become the best President ever. Which is what probably would happen and Batman will have this smug I knew it all a long look... until Joker relapses, starts a world war, murders millions and asks him to kill him. Then Batman gently smothers him lovingly, to which Batman will cradle the joker in his arms and he will cry like a baby. Like a BABY!
pew pew pew
My real problem is the fact Batman hasn't done something akin to building a personalized prison to hold repeated irredeemable psychopaths. He could easily do this with approval, or semi approval from the gouverment. I.E. Batman lets them see the prisoners being handled and the location, but takes care of all security himself. If he couldn't do it as Batman, it would take no effort to get elected and do it as Bruce. The Justice league already in fact does this for multiple offenders considered global threats...why not do it at a lower level of crazy?
As to punisher, I've read everything written by Ennis in the max universe. However, I'm wondering if there is a gross difference in portrayal between Max and 616 motivations? Max has quite the thirst for killing carried over from his war background, and a stubbornness that could make even the most unrelenting mind blush.
As to whose method are more effective, neither gets much resolved in the long term in their universes. However, Punisher has essentially halted all serious crime in singular cities for weeks periods of time when on his most pronounced killing sprees. Then again, it was also noted that once Punisher packs up everything goes back to normal, or even picks up. Furthermore, Punisher never makes a dent in corporate crime, sex trade smuggling/slaves, etc, and freely admits nothing will change from his actions. On the other hand, Batman would do far better smashing corporate crime or large scale operations...
It's basically short term vs long term results with neither altogether edging out the other. Edit: But in Batman's case though, it's more for plot reasons.
Last edited by Becoming An Anthropologist; 05-09-2012 at 04:07 PM.
Nothing tried is worse than nothing gained.
Batman has handled the security in Arkham before, but, comics. There's literally nothing that he can do that won't get overwritten later on for the status quo.
A bullet to the head costs a damn sight less than all of someone's needs taken care for them for the rest of their life. And where has it been proven that everyone can be rehabilitated.
Batman has overlooked the fact that Gotham's justice system, despite all of the good people in it, continually fails to do its job.
Or maybe he hasn't, and he's actively working to reform it.
In any case, the status quo has been maintained for far too long. He's been fighting the system far too long and with such few positive results that it seems useless to continue on that front. He might as well dedicate more time to fighting crime. At least making sure the Joker loses a few more teeth would do more good than trying to get the judges off their asses.
Long story short:
By real world standards, the Joker is one of the few Batman Rogues that actually qualifies as legally insane, and therefore not responsible for his actions. At this point, its up to the legal authorities to properly contain and treat him (like, y'know, not letting a therapist with a name like Harleen Quinzel near a clown motif-ed Hannibal Lector) which would be fairly easy, albeit more than a little strenuous, by real life standards. The last thing you want is the almost as crazy guy who runs around dressed as a bat and delivering Joker to you practically gift wrapped taking it into his head to be the Judge, Jury and Executioner, because then you're going to run the real risk of having to deal with *him* going off the deep end even further, and he's apparently tougher than the Joker while still holding onto the one and a half marbles he's still got left. Heck, if possible, you might want to convince Bats to seek therapy.
By fictional standards, author fiat and plot devices is what keeps money makers like Joker from being permanently dealt with, there are a bajillion other supers with less rigid moral codes who could off him at will, assuming they're willing to risk pissing off Bats by murdering someone he tries to keep tabs on (though creating a justifiable homicide situation regarding the Joker is probably as easy as getting to the same city as him and counting to ten). At which point he's gonna end up coming back in a few months, possibly with demonic/Black Lantern/5D/etc... powers, so congratulations they've basically accomplished less than nothing.
I remember a Punisher vs. Ledger Joker thread which had some people saying that Frank would just carve a swathe through Joker's henchmen to get to him, and I wondered if Frank really wouldn't have felt conflicted about murdering/torturing a bunch of psyche patients that were kidnapped and possibly drugged by Joker into working for him (IIRC). Because that's the kind of risk Frank basically takes every time he kills someone without due process; the person he's attacking may be doing something terrible at that moment, but it may be for reasons that are beyond his control and they may not be so evil if they received the right help. And that's not even counting the number of times that he's attacked heroes with intent to kill/wound, either through mistaken intel or for preventing him from committing vigilante murder.
Fox Mr. Sinister (holding Rogue's chin): "So beautiful, yet so strong."
Fox Wolverine: "Well, I always did think I was kinda cute. Nice of you to mention it."
Official Board Ostrichizer
First I have to state that i'm a huge Batman fan and could go either way with punisher. With that being said I would have to agree with killing someone like the joker for the simple fact that it would save a lot of kives. If Batman didn't have his hang up on thd joker and killed him think of all the lives that would have been spared. I don't however agree with torture. Two shots to the dome and its over. This is just my opionin. I don't think you should kill all cfimanals just the ones who are a true threat to inocent people. Like he joker. Forgive me for my spelling I'm doing this from my phone and it's not easy.
In his own authority defying, insane way, Batman is trying to worrk within the system. The mooks, Arch-criminals and psychos he takes down get delivered to the justice system. What happens after that isn't on him.
With Batman. Inc, Batman and Co. now becomes a privately owned army that is at accountable to somebody (the fact that said somebody is head loony tune Batman is besides the point) so I guess if Batman or Nightwing screw up somehow, the offended party can attempt to sue Bruce Wayne for all he is worth.
The Punisher just hates criminal and wants to see them dead, so he kills them. I don't even think he believes himself that the Justice system is irrideemably broken. He just doesn't give a filp about the Justice system.
If you get shot in the crossfire from a Punisher firefight, it just sucks to be you and just be happy you arent dead. There isn't a damn thing you can do about it.