The actual problem with batman is how the Joker is potrayed as an omni-potent entity who can terrorize the world if he wants to. In the early days Joker was just a crazy guy who wants to prove a point, but right now he is just literal god.
The dude's supposed superpower is that he's crazy, but the dude's actual superpower is to place bomb anywhere in the world, hypnotize anyone in the world, escape any locked space, never gets realized until his plan is already in motion and of course more resources than batman. It's almost never shown how he did it and when he did it, just bam all of a sudden it's there.
Nobody complains about why other batman's villains aren't killed. Just joker. Because he recently became a god that can do whatever the plot needs.
Quite so. ‘Crazy’ means Joker can somehow have access to every resource he needs, go about his plan without anybody bothering him or someone getting wise until it’s too late, and SOMEHOW getting his goons (mostly composed of actual crazy people who are not exactly well-known for following detailed, regular instructions) to do everything he wants them to do perfectly with no mistakes or betrayals.
Meanwhile Batman can apparently keep tabs on Ras Al Ghul, a near-immortal head of a cabal of secret assassins that have secretly killed-controlled several societies in the past. Or see through the actions of aliens or GODS from space that operate and use technology far beyond human comprehension…
But no, a terrorist with bad skin and teeth is somehow more dangerous than all the above…
Batman actually isn’t that good at keeping tabs on Ra’s al Ghul. The majority of the times they meet, Batman hasn’t known where he’d been or how exactly he came back to life after being presumed dead.
There was a plot thread in the comics where Ra's had to keep erasing Batman's memory because Batman just kept finding their base of operations over and over.
Ra’s wiped Batman’s mind after Batman discovered his extra secret League of Shadows. But stories like the Sensei/Ra’s saga, The Lazarus Affair, Batman Annual #8, Batman #400, Son of the Demon, Bride of the Demon, Batman Chronicles #8, Legacy, and Death and the Maidens, for example, show Batman being either unaware of Ra’s’ schemes or location, having Ra’s get the drop on him, or stumbling upon him while not actively looking for him. More often than not, Batman’s encounters with Ra’s over the years feature Ra’s having all the cards.
> The actual problem with batman is how the Joker is potrayed as an omni-potent entity who can terrorize the world if he wants to. In the early days Joker was just a crazy guy who wants to prove a point, but right now he is just literal god.
Consequences of being batman #1 villain, you get similar outlandish feats. And you can add able to survive and escape from even the most unescapable, lethal situations ever.
> In the early days Joker was just a crazy guy who wants to prove a point, but right now he is just literal god.
In the early days, the Joker was just a mobster with a clown gimmick. He wasn't trying to prove any point.
Fixing a corrupt city is not as simple a problem as throwing money at it. The way corruption is measured in a government is funding not being used for its intended purpose, so throwing money at a corruption problem won't make it go away.
It is often mentioned that Gotham might well be beyond saving no matter what Batman does because even if you have money, there is a limit to what one person can do. The Batman franchise has repeatedly pointed out that money has limits.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DjGB-wPGkc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DjGB-wPGkc)
Bruce Wayne tries standing up to Falcone. The crimelord points out that Bruce's money would keep him from getting shot because fear gives him power beyond what money can grant.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpL6Fwu0wkw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpL6Fwu0wkw)
Unless you have superpowers in the mix, power is an illusion. Powerful people only have as much power as other people allow them to.
Honestly, what gets me about Joker these days isn't that Batman hasn't killed him, but that if you stop and think about it for more than 5 seconds, you realise it's not really about moral codes. It's because in 5 months or so after each appearance, there's another Joker story coming up and DC doesn't want to be stuck trying to slot a cut-rate Joker Wannabe like Punchline into his place. It's pure editorial cynicism.
Yep. It’s basically like asking why there’s a laugh track or having characters stop talking at beat moments in cheesy sitcoms. Theyre part of the meta construct
To begin with I never understood why is Batman being singled out for not killing his villains when 99% of superheroes don't do it either ?
I don't agree with the sentiment that heroes should be killing their villains to but why is this always brought up about Batman ? Why is nobody (for example) calling out Superman for not killing Lex Luthor in the same way ? Lex is as much of a monster as Joker while at the same time having vastly superior influence and resources available to him.
Why doesn't anyone ask why the justice and incarceration system fails so much? The equivalent in the real world to superheroes killing their villains is cops being allowed to kill based on their own judgement. (which they kind of are but... well that's not considered a good thing since you only need to look for 5 seconds to find dozens of examples of them getting it wrong). Advocating for heroes killing their villains is basically asking for judge dreadd... which is meant to be satire and not like, you know, a working blueprint for the genre.
Also when heroes DO kill their villains you get a decade of think pieces about why the mcu sucks because they kill their bad guys lol
If a guy killed like a thousand people every weekend I wouldn't be complaining if a cop shot him. This isn't a random person. It's someone more dangerous than most real people could ever dream to be.
Yeah, and batman could send him to the phantom zone or lock him up in a space jail or a million things \*before\* murder. The issue here is the joker stopped being written in any compelling way decades ago and the entire franchise doesn't make sense anymore because no one lets it evolve- but there is PLENTY of stuff that can be done before "why doesn't batman kill him already".
Okay, but the issue is not "kill." It's why doesn't batman permanently stop him. Kill is just the easiest way to frame it. Also, isn't the phantom zone a fate worse than death? Is that the thing where you get stuck in a square fully sentient but unable to do anything or is that something else.
That’s indeed the Phantom Zone. I think later stuff showed it’s more of a portable universe where you can still do stuff but removed from the main universe. The only people you can hurt are other criminals that got sentenced there as well. Plus you lose all your powers, so good luck getting out
(Granted, break-outs happen all the time cuz comics)
No 1s can harm anyone else or anything in the zone (since they all become ghost-like & have intangibility) & breakout usually required an accomplice to operate the projector from the other side. Otherwise, it should be impossible… unless you’re doomsday, the only phantom zone inmate that can breakout by… punch a hole through the zone.
Judge Dredd is satire of the real world.
It doesn't make for effective satire of world where Joker and Magneto can kill thousands of people and given Sunday without any repercussions at all.
>First, Magneto shouldn't be lumped in with the joker.
Why not? His body count is at least comparable.
> Second, Dreadd deals with supervillains all the time so the comparison still works.
From what I know of Dredd, he isn't dealing with the exact same villains every time on top of new ones showing up.
Batman is breaking the law to be a vigilante specifically because he believes the systems don't work and aren't enough. Arguing that he needs to then rely on the systems is illogical.
If that's the case... why is he dressing up like a bat? If the systems worked, there wouldn't be a Batman.
That's why he's only lukewarm, because his ideology doesn't make sense.
Think about it, if you actually believed that killing crazed terrorists was wrong and doing so made you a killer, why don't you protest the killing of Bin Ladin? Why shouldn't he have been arrested and rehabilitated?
I don't think it's that crazy that Batman doesn't want to play judge jury and executioner. In the Joker's case, the man is a known cop killer so bribing the cops not kill him won't protect him, realistically, Joker should have be shot and killed after Batman handed him over to the police. Joker staying alive isn't the result of a corrupt system, it's plot armor.
Batman doesn't usually fight international terrorists outside Ra's Al Ghul and the man brings himself back from the dead. That said when you arrest known terrorists then tend to stay in prison rather than easily breaking out.
I don't see it as the same thing to have a SEAL team kill Bin Laden as Batman killing because being a superhero, Batman can go into similar situations and win without kill anybody.
Though if you are bringing up the need to kill someone I would compare it to the Israelis killing Yahya Abd-al-Latif Ayyash (he was a bomb maker working for Hamas, the Israelis killed him a bomb) since Bin Laden had used up his money and wasn't in a position where he posed a danger.
Another point to bring in is the nature of vigilantes vs public servants (something brought up when discussing ‘masks’).
A public servant like a cop or military (excluding clandestine operations, but those are usually declassified later on) is a known figure. When they use their firearms (which is a use of deadly force where the death of the target is a likely outcome), their name and identity are open for the people to review and determine whether the use was justified or not. Yes, we can say the system is not perfect (different sides will debate the efficacy, but that’s not the point here), but the common people can see the situation and go ‘cop/military/etc. killed this individual and we don’t agree with that’
Batman hides his identity behind a mask and has no authority to even be involved. He’s going out to look for trouble, something self-defense laws won’t cover (in general, even the most pro-2A states will not protect you if you’re running TOWARDS the psychos trying to play hero for several reasons). If Batman kills someone, there’s nobody for the common people to turn to to litigate a trial against. Thus the only logical recourse is to either accept a one-sided executive (which is deeply antithetical to basically every modern system of government) or arrest Batman so he could be brought to trial.
Hence Batman does not kill because he doesn’t believe it’s right for him to take a life when he’s not a public servant entrusted with the life and safety of the people (including the power to take a life if absolutely necessary). Hell, I think there was one comic line (the name escapes me though) where Batman admits his ‘rule’ is really more to placate Gordon. Batman needs Gordon, and Gordon wants to make sure that Batman won’t do anything that’ll put both their necks on the block. Gordon accepts they’ll have to break SOME rules since things are bad enough that it’s necessary…but draws the line at that.
Ironically, Wonder Woman generally doesn't have these issues and is more willing to face accountability than Batman who loves policing other superheroes yet often avoids the natural consequences of his actions due to his popularity.
Hes breaking the 'law' (a law that hasn't been around for like 30+ years at this point) because the regular cops/police *can't* apprehend the villains. His issue isnt with the justice system. Also, you know people *did* protest the killing of bin laden right?
>Why doesn't anyone ask why the justice and incarceration system fails so much? The equivalent in the real world to superheroes killing their villains is cops being allowed to kill based on their own judgement. (which they kind of are but... well that's not considered a good thing since you only need to look for 5 seconds to find dozens of examples of them getting it wrong). Advocating for heroes killing their villains is basically asking for judge dreadd... which is meant to be satire and not like, you know, a working blueprint for the genre.
Vigilantism isn't a good thing at all. Much of what superheroes do, especially Batman, would set up alarm bells in real life before the subject of killing even came up (torture, privacy violation, child endangerment). Hell, Batman putting a bullet in the Joker would arguably cause less of an uproar.
>Also when heroes DO kill their villains you get a decade of think pieces about why the mcu sucks because they kill their bad guys lol
The MCU gets away with it just fine.
But also, I mean... the "why doesn't Batman kill the Joker?" thing relies on giving Batman an awareness of the fact that throwing the Joker in Arkham never works in the long term.
And in that case... why would killing him help? If Batman can notice that everyone always escapes from Arkham, then he'll *also* notice that nobody important stays dead. Killing the Joker isn't any more effective than locking him in Arkham! Arkham Asylum and the grim embrace of death are *both* trivial to escape in the DC universe!
> To begin with I never understood why is Batman being singled out for not killing his villains when 99% of superheroes don't do it either ?
Because Batman made it his thing.
Most Superheroes would cheer on Seal Team 6 taking out Bin Ladin. Batman would spit at them and tell them "Killing him means they're just as bad as him."
And Batman has the joker as his main enemy most other enemies are too strong to be killed or not without insane difficulty or don't really warrant death.
He's by far the one of the most popular superheroes ever created? I thought it'd be obvious.
Also Batman is inherently a little edgier, so the fact he doesn't kill is usually more surprising than others.
That's a meaningless question. Other characters who don't are less well known. Or their villains are less overtly murderous. Whereas Joker openly just loves killing people.
The issue is that most of the other villains are usually superpowered beings that the hero either CAN'T kill,or has the means to be removed permanently without killing them(like 99% of Clark or Wondy).
Batman's villains......are just bad people who don't wanna change,in a system that would've executed them AGES ago.Like Bruce could execute every single villain he has with a bullet to the head because of how awful they are and every single person in Gotham would cheer him like it was a post-arc party in one piece.
> The issue is that most of the other villains are usually superpowered beings that the hero either CAN'T kill,or has the means to be removed permanently without killing them
thats literally the biggest lie ever told. Wonder Woman and Superman don't have means to permanently get rid of people or have a plethora of rogues who are immortal, lmao
>thats literally the biggest lie ever told
No,that's the political system.
>Wonder Woman and Superman don't have means to permanently get rid of people or have a plethora of rogues who are immortal, lmao
I.......know that was my point.It's why people don't usually complain about them not killing their opponents since it's a lot harder to get rid of someone like Braniac or even metallo surprisingly,or in Wonder woman's case....all of hers.Bruce by contrast has no reason not to pop a cap in joker or penguin after seeing the courts let them free for the hundredth time.
Okay except, i think you didn't read what i said.
Because you *can* get rid of Brainiac AND Metallo extremely easily (well, brainiac less so because he probably has a back up of himself or some shit cause idk he just does) Wonder Woman's rogues are also like... half just regular ass people or people with powers that if killed will infact die and wonder woman has the means to murder them.
SO they are literally *just* as bad as batman if not more so because Superman doesn't have a rule for not killing and like can legitimately kill almost everyone one of his rogue gallery if he wanted to and wonder woman *has* killed a few of her rogues in the past and just decides not to for others.
Superman does have a rule against killing. It's been the subject of stories like Kingdom Come and Action Comics #775.
Wonder Woman doesn't have a rule against killing but she also doesn't view killing as her modus operandi. The villains she doesn't kill are either victims of brainwashing and manipulation by another villain (the Silver Swans), simply don't or can't cause nearly as much death and mayhem as the likes of the Joker (generally any villain that isn't a deity or long-lived sorcerer) or are too powerful for her to kill in the first place (the likes of Ares or Circe).
Superman doesn't have a no killing rule like batman does. He has a belief/ideal that heroes shouldn't kill cause all life is precious
Where as batman is 'I will not kill period because it's my personal rule and to violate it is to violate batman'
There's a blatant difference as Superman has committed murder multiple times through the years when he realizes he has no other option but to do such or is in a situation he has no choice but to.
Where as batman has done it once and was fully prepared to die/cease to be who he was because of it.
Superman could at any moment kill his villains and it wouldn't be an actual necessary abstraction to who he is as long as he was convinced there was nothing that he could do to stop them otherwise. (I'm not counting the awful injustice shit as anything remotely reliable for what would happen to him if he did kill someone like joker.)
(Ignoring of course the golden years before he had his rule in place- for batman)
Both Batman and Superman have killed multiple times. It's just that it was treated as if it didn't count because the villains weren't human. Batman even once told Gorilla Grodd that his rule doesn't apply to apes.
DC will have these two kill and write it off because the people they killed weren't human or just pretend it doesn't happen the next time they want to tear down a hero who kills to prop up Superman and Batman.
>To begin with I never understood why is Batman being singled out for not killing his villains when 99% of superheroes don't do it either ?
Part of this, for me, is the 'if you kill a killer, the number of killers in the world remains the same' argument that gets used for him.
Not if that killer has already killed before. Like Batman, who’s killed plenty of people though his many runs.
So if you’re already a killer, then killing a killer would reduce the number of killers
>To begin with I never understood why is Batman being singled out for not killing his villains when 99% of superheroes don't do it either ?
Most superheroes don't have someone as vile as the Joker in their rogues and even if they do, just stopping them is considered hard enough because they of their powers. Spider-Man probably couldn't kill Carnage even if he wanted to because of how powerful he is. The Joker is just a human, yet is at times written as being more omnipotent than God.
Furthermore, most superheroes don't have nearly as many stories about not killing as Batman.
Batman has saved Joker a number of times. He has stopped other heroes from killing him. And when the court was going to kill him. He helped his defense .
If Joker dies, some troubled teen who calls himself “smiley” will just take his place
If Joker gets executed for a crime that he didn’t commit, while the actual perpetrator gets free, you get thousands of smileys around Gotham
AH yes, that doesn't set a horrible precedent or anything for people to do.
Also pretty sure would intercede in a majority of cases if he had reason or knowledge to do such.
Joker has committed enough crimes that I balk to believe he could be framed with anything that would get him killed. Either Gotham does executions and he's dead long before, or not.
Yeah it's definetly like a storyline that really doesn't make sense, I mean hell jokers literally on the stand threatening everyone with a knife
edit; okay there wasn't a knife involved re-reading, i dont know why i thought he had a knife
People need to understand that superhero comics are stories that aren't supposed to end thus DC will do whatever necessary to keep the status quo like not letting Batman kill villains are keeping Gotham in perpetual misery.
People need to understand the reason why Batman hasn't killed the Joker or fixed the corruption in his city because he's in a medium where he'll always fight Joker and the war on crime till the end of time. That's just the nature of DC and Marvel comics. Their never ending stories and the heroes won't get definitive ends to their stories.
The problem with Batman (like all superheroes) is that the status quo is never allowed to change. Gotham must always be a shithole, the Joker can never die, Bruce can never resolve his trauma, etc.
> The guy is literally not obligated in any way to be a vigilante/superhero but he does it anyway,
Vigilantism is against the law. Batman is specifically taking the law into his own hands because he believes the current system isn't working. If cops and lawyers could make Gotham safe you'd have to assume he would retire fulfilled.
So having him go "Oh, but I can't possibly work outside the system in *that way* teehee" just makes him lukewarm.
He's here because he doesn't think the police can get the job done, but he also not getting the job done.
Yeah, the system should execute Joker, absolutely. But the system also shouldn't need someone like Batman. Gotham shouldn't need vigilantees, Batman has decided that it does and that he'll work outside the system. So saying it's not his fault when he gives Joker back to a system he knows doesn't work and... it doesn't work, doesn't add up.
He's just got a line in the sand, and that line has meant hundreds or thousands of people have died.
> Why doesn't batman buy gothic city if he is omni millionaire?because the problem is that the whole city is corrupt and in the hands of the mafia
IRL we completely destroyed the Mafia through policing, social programs and the money to make those work. He has the funds to make things work outside the system, but it never seems to make a difference- Joker has an infinite amount of people willing to help him murder people.
Local policing and social programs had absolutely 0 affect on the decline of the mafia. The FBI reorganizing around giving a shit about crime families, the passing of RICO, the creation of witness protection, wiretapping, the legalization of their main sources of revenue, the weakening of unions, and the decline in local government authority were the contributors to the downfall of the mafia. All of these are federal solutions because local governments had no authority to stop these matters, the best thing Bruce Wayne could do for Gotham is create a national movement to garner federal interest in the city. His money would do little if he tried to tackle the problem in any other manner.
Idk if I’d say it’s irrelevant. It’s still very much so around. My point is that no system could fully get rid of organized crime, but a better, stronger system can mitigate its affect on the rest of society
Batman can absolutely be using his money to undermine the corruption in the city- if the dude can fund warp drive capable starships for the justice league and space based bases with artificial gravity he can make sure that infrastructure and social services are so good in gotham that the crime rate would plummet. People don't become criminals because they are evil by nature, they do it because that's where the economic opportunities are. Any corruption that would undermine him fixing the city's economics can be where the cape and cowl come into play.
Instead... just drives around in a rocket car beating up thugs. The stories only work when you make every criminal gleefully and irredeemably evil... and that just doesn't feel right anymore given the world outside my window as marvel would put it.
tldr: Batman has the resources to do a hell of a lot more to help the citizens of gotham and straight up doesn't because at the end of the day his stories aren't that kind of power fantasy.
My point was that there is no point in throwing cash directly at it without first eliminating the gotica mafia (since they basically control the city's bureaucracy).
Imagine if you create a social plan for unemployed citizens but these citizens are already working for the mafia, they will not stop being organized crime criminals (since they do not accept resignations) but they will be criminals with a perfectly legal social plan.
You can’t stop organized crime tho. I mean, every iteration of Batman has organized crime, regardless of how long the run is.
Why can’t Bruce set up more social programs and strengthen the government institutions while fighting crime?
He’s only one man. He can’t work fast enough to stop all organized crime before the next group forms. There’s also someone new coming to town to replace the last organization he took down.
But if the citizens were given social programs to help them get on their feet and the local government started getting more and more up and up leaders that Bruce closely vets and funds, then there’d start being less reason for people to join the mob or fall to corruption
Oh I’m sorry. Is there no more organized crime anymore because of RICO? I didn’t realize gangs no longer exist. I guess the mafia is no longer around (it very much so is still).
The reason you don’t hear about it is because society has developed to not let it be so pervasive. Not because of RICO.
The mafia is still very much so around. Gangs, depending on their structures, are also organized crime.
So no, organized crime hasn’t gone anywhere. It’s just changed how it operates
Yes there's still small scale organised crime, but the idea of a Mafia like organisation that can flout the law and holds a city in their hands is long gone.
Is it? Or have they just gotten better at hiding? The mafia is still very active in states like NY, NJ, and IL. Such a sophisticated power structure wouldnt just disappear, even with the laws that have passed since the mafia’s heyday
If they have a legal social plan... they aren't criminals anymore. If you make sure normal gotham citizens can get good jobs and good paychecks and good social services... the mobsters lose their rank and file soldiers. Walter White became a criminal cuz of his medical debt- batman can wipe away the medical debt of every citizen in gotham. The credit card debt. The student loans. He can pay everyone's rent for a year. He could build, and give away housing on private plans.
The corruption at the top snarling against these plans actually sounds like a compelling batman story, as he basically forces all of these corrupting influences to surface at once to fight against him undermining them.
My point is you can still absolutely tell cool batman stories without falling back on a billionaire beating up poor people who never really had an option in life. I know people HATE calling that out but frankly the more modern you push batman's stories the more you kind of can't ignore that aspect. If we go back to him just being a sort of rich weirdo who lives in a mansion on the outskirts of time in a 1930s setting than sure, classic batman still works. Modern times where he can buy and sell small nations and not feel a dent in his wallet? Nah, he can do more than run around punching people.
Batman does do those things though, he's funded many systems in attempt to help the city and guide people away from crime. He's been showcased just straight up hiring criminals off the street so they can make money legally.He pays for any damages he causes. Supports the families of police officers that die. The real problem is that DC won't let Gotham actually improve the comics have to keep going indefinitely.
Bro Batman is literally the biggest philanthropist in Gotham City what are you talking about??? Ever heard of the Wayne foundation?? Batman corp??
The fact that he also uses his money to help the justice league should be praised more, he is literally saving the planet, how is that wrong or worse than spending it on Gotham?? Batman is a godsend to the DC universe and should be praised to hell and back, yeah he fucks up from time to time, but cmon, saving the planet is THE most important thing a person could EVER do for humanity and Batman has done it many times.
This is what I'm talking about. Explain to me what the wayne foundation has actionably done in gotham. Like, what does it fund, what does it do? It sounds good, it lets you check a box on "batman uses his money to help because it says he does" but in the end there's always more abandoned warehouses and always more goons that turn to crime. Next you're gunna talk bring up the curse that supposedly is worked into the bones of gotham (that batman has never gotten the literal gods and epic sorcerers he works with to look for a solution to).
It becomes utterly insane to read a contemporary story where he's roughing up thugs to find where a missing girl is or whatever when in a justice league story he has a satellite that can track the flash in real time or whatever. I swear people just fully shut their brains off when aspects of batman are criticized. There's no discourse, just excuses being made for writers being lazy! Batman could literally just pay for every single mob goon in gotham to just retire in luxury and the mob enforcement would be crippled. I'm not saying he \*should\* do this, but when you look at what normal billionaires can do in the real world and then look at batman's fictional nonsense comic world you can see he's actually doing \*less\* than them!
Funds hospitals and free clinics, employs and pays for the college tuition of at risk youth, builds and repairs infrastructure in poorer neighborhoods, funded countless businesses after Cataclysm, covers tuition of all Wayne Enterprises employees, rebuilt Gotham after No Man’s Land, builds low income housing, fixed the transit system, etc
It’s not quite the hellhole it’s usually made out to be. Bad, sure, but the murder rate has gone down ever since Batman started his career. And most of the worst stuff that happens is just villains taking over the city or doing big schemes that wouldn’t be much affected by the positive things that Bruce Wayne does with his money.
Wayne foundation is a farmaceutical company, it basically is charity to help those in need and fund free clinics, he also made the Victims Program, to aid financially to victims of crime, and also built public transit, orphanages and free schools and scholarships, fundraisers, infrastructure, etc. But sadly there have been lots of issues with his efforts, corruption within the foundation, Joker attacking the WF building, Penguin and Two Face fucking up his plans, etc. Eventually Bruce ended up broke, but Gotham city is better than ever by far in the comics thanks to him.
Now onto the curse, there's been like 4 explanations of the curse, 2 regarding Lazarus pits, one regarding where Gotham was constructed and Barbaross and one where it's stated that the water supply was fucked by Thomas a long time ago, and that this is responsible for how Gotham is, all of them are kinda dealt with, the biggest Lazarus pit there was in Gotham is currently destroyed, the Barbaross curse was dealt with, since it needed constant sacrifices in Arkham, wich were stopped by the Batfam and the Thomas one was debunked by Batman, there's no curse, and Gotham is thriving thanks to Bruce's efforts, there's less villains, more heroes, less crime and corruption, and the next generation will be better thanks to the Batfam and all the work put out towards helping children, they will have Hope as well, that's what Batman was all about, and Nightwing will do that from now on instead of Bruce, so the futures bright for Gotham currently.
But I don't excuse shitty writing, it's true that Batman SHOULD use the tower infinitely more, it's op, if he can also invent robots like Failsafe, he should, but he has helped SO much, it's unreal, mans a saint.
...Yes it is. Its fact that the more economic opportunities available, support networks, and social services the less crime there is because the less people turn to it to make a living. All of those things are within batman's power to influence for the better and are utterly ignored most batman stories.
First off downvoting? Really?
Second off- no it isn't.
You can't just *create* social services and infrastructure and cure homelessness or not having jobs or any myriad of issues that the less fortunate have.
'doing this' you mean working to do it and the problem isn't actually going away or just vanishing and its been trying to do such for nearly 60 years now in some cases?
hmmm.... weird...
To put in my own two cents (from what I have personally observed, only a single data point), while social services CAN help…they are not the sole contributing factor or even the greatest factor.
That comes down more to community and family culture. I have personally witnessed entire swaths of families be given a lot of state money to help their children go to school and college, along with free school supplies, tuition grants, stipends for this and that, etc.. Often the money is blown on stupid things, the supplies are tossed in the trash (it’s not ‘cool’ to look like you’re trying in school), and tuition is worthless since the kids don’t bother showing up to class or paying attention.
To quote an old adage, you can do everything in your power to get a horse to water, up to and including physically forcing its head under the surface…but if it doesn’t want to drink it will NOT drink.
I’m not a social expert, but Bruce throwing a lot of money and starting a lot of social programs yet Gotham still staying in a bad shape is not unrealistic to me. Yes, that stuff could certainly help a good number of people (the horses that very much do want to drink and now have ample opportunities and ease of access) but by no means will it magically make them want to.
Off the top, the mafia have a very vested interest in keeping the people of Gotham weak and poor (it’s how they consolidate power) and have a number of ways to act that money cannot directly challenge. Several of officers, judges, DAs, etc. have already accepted bribes; that’s dirt that the mafia can use to blackmail them and ruin their lives unless they play ball. Scale that to the social programs; superintendents in Gotham ISD that send the money up to the bosses through slushes rather than improving the schools and hiring more teachers, mayors that send it up to the bosses through slushes rather than building more houses or better roads and wheeled infrastructure. Hell, IRL California has raised billions in trying to combat homelessness and failed hard with most critics pointing out the money was probably slushed.
Basically this yeah. The programs *in theory* would solve everything if it was just theory.
However in application they are flawed because of corruption, people themselves either misusing them or just not wanting to use them because of pride or something, and a lot of general other issues that just come up in life essentially.
Gotham is better than it has ever been but its because of Batman doing batman things *in addition* to his programs and the like.
However even with those two things obviously theres the giant elephant in the room that is 'SUPER VILLAINS' and like, grundy one day just rampaging through your workplace and all of a sudden the program doesnt really work anymore cause theres a sudden influx of people needing new jobs and shit and the system becomes stressed and can just start breaking apart.
Saying all Bruce needs to do is the systems/programs absolutely just doesn't work.
He can put away Joker for good without killing him. But he doesnt. Just look at his contingency plans for the league if they turn rogue. It doesnt outright kill them, it puts them out of commission for a long while.
And what is the problem if the whole Gotham is corrupt? Batman doesnt even play fair, could have used the corruption in his advantage. If he could play jla heroes and villains around, what stops it from working against the mafia? Lazy writing?
I love how every argument against batman killing the joker is "he does have to," like that was the point. He has the means, and the moral high ground, pretty much exclusively.
You know, batman is probably not that rich.
Think about it, the premis of "court of owl" Is they are the richest players and families in gotham, but Bruce was only invited a couple of years down the line and iirc Thomas wasn't invited or was invited, but can refuse without reprecution.
Bruh saying it's the state's fault means you don't understand comics.
The entire idea is other than heroes, villains and their associated people everyone else is an absolute moron. Expecting the state to kill joker is like expecting a fish to fly.
>The guy is literally not obligated in any way to be a vigilante/superhero but he does it anyway,
Which makes the fact he's against killing but is okay with torture, assault, privacy violation, stockpiling of illegal weaponry, possible embezzlement, child endangerment and child abuse incredibly hypocritical. Bruce has not problem dangling people off buildings or punching his own son when he's trying to communicate with him but putting a bullet in a guy who's basically a walking disaster in human form is where he draws the line. And this wouldn't even be so bad if he didn't act like he owns Gotham any time another hero tries to operate there.
Yeah, the system is screwed up, which is why Batman exists in the first place. That the Joker is still a problem all this time shows that Batman is just as useless as the police and the courts.
The funny thing about the Joker is that before he was written to be some vile terrorist that would be tried and executed under normal circumstances, you could've argued that he was actually insane. The super-sanity thing and claiming everything he did was calculated and planned was just a bad idea.
My only problem with Batman stories is how it portrays mentally ill people and the wrongful diagnoses it makes to it's villains many of which aren't mentally ill. Also it should be noted damn near no Batman villain is criminally insane they're all aware of their actions and that they're illegal in the real world they'd all be found criminally sane and be sent to jail or in the US deathrow. So one of the problems here is that the writers literally don't know what insanity is (or maybe the Batman world just has a radically different definition of insanity than ours).
About the character himself I guess my only thing to point out is that he should put his villains in way safer places. In Injustice he managed to get a cell that Superman couldn't escape from I'm sure he could find one of those for Joker. But no instead he just puts him and the others in Arkham again and again and again and he doesn't seem to realize that that just doesn't work. Though I guess this is a problem with the comics medium more than it is with Bruce Wayne if they just found a way to contain the villains there would be no more Batman stories they have to escape somehow.
Because they *are* mentally ill. You have to be legitimately 100% ignorant of what mental illness is at large if you don't think the rogues have a mental illness.
Also as for 'insanity' half of them *would* meet the definition of it because even if they understand right and wrong, they still have a compulsion or calling/pulling/whatever word you want to use *to commit* the wrong actions and its sometimes so strong they legit can't stop themselves which *is* part of a insanity defense (or one of the things that can be argued under insanity)
If were just picking any one random example, Riddler has OCD and NPD- both are categorized as a mental illness. Riddler's is so bad that he infact *could not* stop himself from committing crimes even when he had amnesia and was a legitimate good guy who wasn't a villain or anything of the sort.
Well I never said most of them didn't have a mental illness. I was referring to guys like Mr. Freeze, Penguin, Ra's and maybe Ivy when I said many of which aren't mentally ill. On insanity first of all the compulsion aspect being added in is something that varies from one country/state to another.
And even with the compulsion condition most of them don't have compulsions which make them commit crimes they have compulsions for stuff like coin tosses to help them make decisions. And on that besides Two-Face, Riddler and Humpty Dumpty I don't know any other villain which has compulsions they can't control most of them do the stuff they do out of their own free will. The only guy that has a compulsion specifically for comitting crimes is as you said Riddler and him I imagine would be found insane if the place he was tried in had that compulsion condition added into the insanity defense. But I can correct my previous comment, any villain who knows what's real and what's not and is choosing to commit crimes out of their free will would not be found insane. Hopefully that makes it better.
Also you said NPD is classified as a mental illness and that's dubious there's a [big debate going on whether or not personality disorders are mental illness](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/distinction-between-personality-disorder-and-mental-illness/F4FC446AEB38B5704ED132245F86E93B#:~:text=Psychiatrists%2C%20and%20perhaps%20British%20psychiatrists%20more%20than%20most%2C%20are%20ambivalent%20about%20whether%20to%20regard%20personality%20disorders%20as%20mental%20illnesses.%20Until%20recently%2C%20there%20was%20no%20compelling%20reason%20for%20attempting%20to%20resolve%20the%20issue). The US law doesn't consider them as illness you can look that up if you don't believe me.
Why did you link a paper that states it's a british/UK thing that doesn't consider them mental illness and then state 'the US law doesn't consider them as illness' also that paper is from 2002...
Which- the US law doesn't *have* to consider them anything. You're correct though that mental illness as a term is like... 'a law' thing and psychology itself is moving away from that term in general though.
The field of psychology considers it a disorder just the same as most the 'insanity defense' disorders are considered.
Is [this paper](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3811091/#:~:text=Personality%20disorders%20have%20a,often%2C%20under%20volitional%20control) better? It's strictly from the USA and it's from 2013. I can find a more recent one if you prefer that.
>Which- the US law doesn't *have* to consider them anything.
It kind of does. It's the US law that decides whether or not you're criminally insane and so what US law considers mental illness is very important.
>You're correct though that mental illness as a term is like... 'a law' thing and psychology itself is moving away from that term in general though.
Unfortunately. They should make distinctions instead of lumping everything together under the disorder label.
>The field of psychology considers it a disorder just the same as most the 'insanity defense' disorders are considered.
That's not true at all. [Insanity pleas constitute less than 1% of all criminal defenses (regardless of whether the criminals have a disorder) and even then it's very hard to have them work](https://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/insanity/#:~:text=In%20reality%2C%20however%2C%20various%20criminal,about%2030%20cases%20every%20year). Here's another [source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1786413/#:~:text=Overall%2C%20the%20insanity%20defense%20was%20raised%20in%20one%20percent%20of%20all%20felony%20cases.%20Further%2C%20only%2026%20percent%20of%20those%20raising%20the%20insanity%20defense%20were%20actually%20acquitted%20NGRI). Where do you get this information from?
It's not better no, because it's again only talking about the law.
Also I have zero idea what you're even responding to with the last paragraph and sources. Are you even reading what you replied too?
Like: I have zero faith you actually know about mental disorders/illness or any actual psychology and you're just arguing semantics about criminal insanity.
Look most Batman villains wouldn't be found criminally insane. Almost all of them are aware of what they're doing and very very few of them have compulsions which make them commit crimes. They don't meet the [insanity definition](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal_insanity), I don't know what to tell you. Neither through the M'Naghten rule nor through the irresistible impulse test. About the personality disorders as far as I'm aware there's some ambiguity as to whether they're mental illnesses or not. A sizable amount of criminals have PDs if I went by what you say I'd think all of them should be in psychiatric hospitals.
Edit: And also even psychologists agree that many of the batman villains [don't fit into any diagnosis](https://bookriot.com/batman-and-mental-illness/#:~:text=When%20I%20spoke%20to%20Dr.%20Langley%20about%20the%20depiction%20of%20mental%20illness%20in%20Batman%20comics%2C%20he%20also%20pointed%20out%20that%20many%20of%20the%20villainous%20characters%20defy%20diagnosis%3A%20they%20are%20described%20as%20%E2%80%9Cmad%2C%E2%80%9D%20but%20their%20symptoms%20do%20not%20match%20up%20with%20any%20illness%20in%20particular) despite being called insane. You claim I don't know anything but you still haven't presented any evidence/source for any of your claims. You've only rambled on while thinking you know so much more.
I assume you're saying he'd be found insane. Can he tell what's real and what's not apart from each other? I heard he runs a criminal organization that indicates a high degree of awareness and mental competence. Off of that alone he probably wouldn't be found insane.
He flips a coin for every decision he makes, and after half his face was burned off he has an obsession of acting like he has dual personal for each or actually has one, depending on the adaptation or comic.
Maybe the dual personality could make a good case for his insanity defense in the stories he has it (though I don't think a criminally insane dual personality having person could run a crime empire like he does). All the others things are just quirks or unique characteristics they don't make him insane.
Someone flipping a coin on life and death decisions is not just a quirk. Sombody who legitimatelt leaves their fate and plans up to pure chance, has become a criminal due to a traumatic experience that mutilayed him, and has a split personality qould absolutely be able to legally claim insanity.
Well first of all most Two Face versions don't have a split personality (or at least don't show DID symptoms). You're making a faulty generalization. Secondly, flipping a coin for big decisions doesn't make you criminally insane. Just because something seems weird or alien to you doesn't make it criminal insanity. Here's the [definition of it](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal_insanity#:~:text=Criminal%20insanity%20refers%20to%20a%20mental%20illness%20or%20disease%20that%20makes%20it%20impossible%20for%20a%C2%A0defendant%C2%A0to%20know%20they%20were%20committing%20a%20crime%20or%20to%20understand%20that%20their%20actions%20are%20wrong.%20A%20defendant%20found%20to%20be%20criminally%20insane%20can%20assert%20an%C2%A0insanity%20defense).
>qould absolutely be able to legally claim insanity.
Everyone is able to legally claim insanity. Whether or not the judge/jury accepts the claim is another story.
Ventriliquist, Babydoll, Mr. Freeze, Two Face, Magpie, Doodlebug, Professor Pyg, The Penguin, Humpty Dumpty, Azrael, Clayface, Mad Hatter, and The Riddler are all verifiably insane. And that's just off the top of my head. It's arguable Poison Ivy's sudden connection to The Green made her that way too, though she was already an ecoterrorist before that.
Once again what DC comics says is criminally insane and what's criminally insane in the real world are different things. Also Penguin is verifiably insane? That's a very wild take I'm gonna need a source for that no Batman story I've ever seen claims Penguin is insane. About Ivy I'm pretty sure there are comics which explicitly say she's not insane. Same with Freeze.
The idea that a rogue actor should kill people is kind of absurd to me. Should Batman kill other obviously guilty people? Keep in mind that history is littered with people obviously guilty of the worst crimes rape, murder, etc that wound up not being so guilty. Does Batman feel comfortable knowing that his human biases may influence him to enact the most serious of punishments on people in a biased manner. The joker is an edge case sure and I surely wouldn’t fault Batman for killing him, but it’s rather arbitrary when things stop being an edge case. Also saying that it is someone’s moral responsibility to kill another person is extreme.
Eventually, you become an adult and realize superhero shows/movies are for children. Suspension of disbelief can only carry you so far. When you're a kid, you can see it as "Batman is the good guy and would never do bad stuff!!" but as you become an adult, you realize that he's almost as much a villain as The Joker. His inaction has lead to the death of hundreds (depending on the comic, millions lol) and is culpable for that. At some point "the hero" would do what was the right thing for the greater good and "euthanize the rabid dog." And hell, not even "the hero." Any person who had the ability to bring the Joker's murderous reign to an end, would.
It really does seem like he's the bored billionaire who needs bad guys to fight because his life would be all the more boring if they weren't around.
If you couldn't already tell, Batman was a childhood hero who left me utterly disappointed when I grew old enough to understand how ineffectual he really was and how the concept of "heroes" in general was just so ridiculous lol
The actual problem with batman is how the Joker is potrayed as an omni-potent entity who can terrorize the world if he wants to. In the early days Joker was just a crazy guy who wants to prove a point, but right now he is just literal god. The dude's supposed superpower is that he's crazy, but the dude's actual superpower is to place bomb anywhere in the world, hypnotize anyone in the world, escape any locked space, never gets realized until his plan is already in motion and of course more resources than batman. It's almost never shown how he did it and when he did it, just bam all of a sudden it's there. Nobody complains about why other batman's villains aren't killed. Just joker. Because he recently became a god that can do whatever the plot needs.
Quite so. ‘Crazy’ means Joker can somehow have access to every resource he needs, go about his plan without anybody bothering him or someone getting wise until it’s too late, and SOMEHOW getting his goons (mostly composed of actual crazy people who are not exactly well-known for following detailed, regular instructions) to do everything he wants them to do perfectly with no mistakes or betrayals. Meanwhile Batman can apparently keep tabs on Ras Al Ghul, a near-immortal head of a cabal of secret assassins that have secretly killed-controlled several societies in the past. Or see through the actions of aliens or GODS from space that operate and use technology far beyond human comprehension… But no, a terrorist with bad skin and teeth is somehow more dangerous than all the above…
Batman actually isn’t that good at keeping tabs on Ra’s al Ghul. The majority of the times they meet, Batman hasn’t known where he’d been or how exactly he came back to life after being presumed dead.
There was a plot thread in the comics where Ra's had to keep erasing Batman's memory because Batman just kept finding their base of operations over and over.
Ra’s wiped Batman’s mind after Batman discovered his extra secret League of Shadows. But stories like the Sensei/Ra’s saga, The Lazarus Affair, Batman Annual #8, Batman #400, Son of the Demon, Bride of the Demon, Batman Chronicles #8, Legacy, and Death and the Maidens, for example, show Batman being either unaware of Ra’s’ schemes or location, having Ra’s get the drop on him, or stumbling upon him while not actively looking for him. More often than not, Batman’s encounters with Ra’s over the years feature Ra’s having all the cards.
> The actual problem with batman is how the Joker is potrayed as an omni-potent entity who can terrorize the world if he wants to. In the early days Joker was just a crazy guy who wants to prove a point, but right now he is just literal god. Consequences of being batman #1 villain, you get similar outlandish feats. And you can add able to survive and escape from even the most unescapable, lethal situations ever.
> In the early days Joker was just a crazy guy who wants to prove a point, but right now he is just literal god. In the early days, the Joker was just a mobster with a clown gimmick. He wasn't trying to prove any point.
Fixing a corrupt city is not as simple a problem as throwing money at it. The way corruption is measured in a government is funding not being used for its intended purpose, so throwing money at a corruption problem won't make it go away. It is often mentioned that Gotham might well be beyond saving no matter what Batman does because even if you have money, there is a limit to what one person can do. The Batman franchise has repeatedly pointed out that money has limits.
B- b- but money is power 🥺🥺🥺
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DjGB-wPGkc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DjGB-wPGkc) Bruce Wayne tries standing up to Falcone. The crimelord points out that Bruce's money would keep him from getting shot because fear gives him power beyond what money can grant. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpL6Fwu0wkw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpL6Fwu0wkw) Unless you have superpowers in the mix, power is an illusion. Powerful people only have as much power as other people allow them to.
Honestly, what gets me about Joker these days isn't that Batman hasn't killed him, but that if you stop and think about it for more than 5 seconds, you realise it's not really about moral codes. It's because in 5 months or so after each appearance, there's another Joker story coming up and DC doesn't want to be stuck trying to slot a cut-rate Joker Wannabe like Punchline into his place. It's pure editorial cynicism.
Yep. It’s basically like asking why there’s a laugh track or having characters stop talking at beat moments in cheesy sitcoms. Theyre part of the meta construct
Gilligan and the gang cant just build a boat because then there'd be no show!
To begin with I never understood why is Batman being singled out for not killing his villains when 99% of superheroes don't do it either ? I don't agree with the sentiment that heroes should be killing their villains to but why is this always brought up about Batman ? Why is nobody (for example) calling out Superman for not killing Lex Luthor in the same way ? Lex is as much of a monster as Joker while at the same time having vastly superior influence and resources available to him.
Why doesn't anyone ask why the justice and incarceration system fails so much? The equivalent in the real world to superheroes killing their villains is cops being allowed to kill based on their own judgement. (which they kind of are but... well that's not considered a good thing since you only need to look for 5 seconds to find dozens of examples of them getting it wrong). Advocating for heroes killing their villains is basically asking for judge dreadd... which is meant to be satire and not like, you know, a working blueprint for the genre. Also when heroes DO kill their villains you get a decade of think pieces about why the mcu sucks because they kill their bad guys lol
If we ask for the superheroes to act as the legal system, then we are saying we cannot make our own decisions.
You mean like they already do?
It’s a fucking comic I absolutely think the comic civilians are incapable of making their own decisions, as evidenced by the Joker not being killed
If a guy killed like a thousand people every weekend I wouldn't be complaining if a cop shot him. This isn't a random person. It's someone more dangerous than most real people could ever dream to be.
Yeah, and batman could send him to the phantom zone or lock him up in a space jail or a million things \*before\* murder. The issue here is the joker stopped being written in any compelling way decades ago and the entire franchise doesn't make sense anymore because no one lets it evolve- but there is PLENTY of stuff that can be done before "why doesn't batman kill him already".
Okay, but the issue is not "kill." It's why doesn't batman permanently stop him. Kill is just the easiest way to frame it. Also, isn't the phantom zone a fate worse than death? Is that the thing where you get stuck in a square fully sentient but unable to do anything or is that something else.
That’s indeed the Phantom Zone. I think later stuff showed it’s more of a portable universe where you can still do stuff but removed from the main universe. The only people you can hurt are other criminals that got sentenced there as well. Plus you lose all your powers, so good luck getting out (Granted, break-outs happen all the time cuz comics)
No 1s can harm anyone else or anything in the zone (since they all become ghost-like & have intangibility) & breakout usually required an accomplice to operate the projector from the other side. Otherwise, it should be impossible… unless you’re doomsday, the only phantom zone inmate that can breakout by… punch a hole through the zone.
Tell this to the writers, not the fans.
Judge Dredd is satire of the real world. It doesn't make for effective satire of world where Joker and Magneto can kill thousands of people and given Sunday without any repercussions at all.
First, Magneto shouldn't be lumped in with the joker. Second, Dreadd deals with supervillains all the time so the comparison still works.
>First, Magneto shouldn't be lumped in with the joker. Why not? His body count is at least comparable. > Second, Dreadd deals with supervillains all the time so the comparison still works. From what I know of Dredd, he isn't dealing with the exact same villains every time on top of new ones showing up.
If Batman or the X-Men apprehend a villain then they aren't stopping them from getting a legal execution, that is all on the normal people.
Batman is breaking the law to be a vigilante specifically because he believes the systems don't work and aren't enough. Arguing that he needs to then rely on the systems is illogical. If that's the case... why is he dressing up like a bat? If the systems worked, there wouldn't be a Batman. That's why he's only lukewarm, because his ideology doesn't make sense. Think about it, if you actually believed that killing crazed terrorists was wrong and doing so made you a killer, why don't you protest the killing of Bin Ladin? Why shouldn't he have been arrested and rehabilitated?
I don't think it's that crazy that Batman doesn't want to play judge jury and executioner. In the Joker's case, the man is a known cop killer so bribing the cops not kill him won't protect him, realistically, Joker should have be shot and killed after Batman handed him over to the police. Joker staying alive isn't the result of a corrupt system, it's plot armor. Batman doesn't usually fight international terrorists outside Ra's Al Ghul and the man brings himself back from the dead. That said when you arrest known terrorists then tend to stay in prison rather than easily breaking out. I don't see it as the same thing to have a SEAL team kill Bin Laden as Batman killing because being a superhero, Batman can go into similar situations and win without kill anybody. Though if you are bringing up the need to kill someone I would compare it to the Israelis killing Yahya Abd-al-Latif Ayyash (he was a bomb maker working for Hamas, the Israelis killed him a bomb) since Bin Laden had used up his money and wasn't in a position where he posed a danger.
Another point to bring in is the nature of vigilantes vs public servants (something brought up when discussing ‘masks’). A public servant like a cop or military (excluding clandestine operations, but those are usually declassified later on) is a known figure. When they use their firearms (which is a use of deadly force where the death of the target is a likely outcome), their name and identity are open for the people to review and determine whether the use was justified or not. Yes, we can say the system is not perfect (different sides will debate the efficacy, but that’s not the point here), but the common people can see the situation and go ‘cop/military/etc. killed this individual and we don’t agree with that’ Batman hides his identity behind a mask and has no authority to even be involved. He’s going out to look for trouble, something self-defense laws won’t cover (in general, even the most pro-2A states will not protect you if you’re running TOWARDS the psychos trying to play hero for several reasons). If Batman kills someone, there’s nobody for the common people to turn to to litigate a trial against. Thus the only logical recourse is to either accept a one-sided executive (which is deeply antithetical to basically every modern system of government) or arrest Batman so he could be brought to trial. Hence Batman does not kill because he doesn’t believe it’s right for him to take a life when he’s not a public servant entrusted with the life and safety of the people (including the power to take a life if absolutely necessary). Hell, I think there was one comic line (the name escapes me though) where Batman admits his ‘rule’ is really more to placate Gordon. Batman needs Gordon, and Gordon wants to make sure that Batman won’t do anything that’ll put both their necks on the block. Gordon accepts they’ll have to break SOME rules since things are bad enough that it’s necessary…but draws the line at that.
Ironically, Wonder Woman generally doesn't have these issues and is more willing to face accountability than Batman who loves policing other superheroes yet often avoids the natural consequences of his actions due to his popularity.
Hes breaking the 'law' (a law that hasn't been around for like 30+ years at this point) because the regular cops/police *can't* apprehend the villains. His issue isnt with the justice system. Also, you know people *did* protest the killing of bin laden right?
>Why doesn't anyone ask why the justice and incarceration system fails so much? The equivalent in the real world to superheroes killing their villains is cops being allowed to kill based on their own judgement. (which they kind of are but... well that's not considered a good thing since you only need to look for 5 seconds to find dozens of examples of them getting it wrong). Advocating for heroes killing their villains is basically asking for judge dreadd... which is meant to be satire and not like, you know, a working blueprint for the genre. Vigilantism isn't a good thing at all. Much of what superheroes do, especially Batman, would set up alarm bells in real life before the subject of killing even came up (torture, privacy violation, child endangerment). Hell, Batman putting a bullet in the Joker would arguably cause less of an uproar. >Also when heroes DO kill their villains you get a decade of think pieces about why the mcu sucks because they kill their bad guys lol The MCU gets away with it just fine.
But also, I mean... the "why doesn't Batman kill the Joker?" thing relies on giving Batman an awareness of the fact that throwing the Joker in Arkham never works in the long term. And in that case... why would killing him help? If Batman can notice that everyone always escapes from Arkham, then he'll *also* notice that nobody important stays dead. Killing the Joker isn't any more effective than locking him in Arkham! Arkham Asylum and the grim embrace of death are *both* trivial to escape in the DC universe!
Then maybe DC should stop building stories around these questions.
The x-men do kill their villains a lot. But some of them just keep returning, also captain killed red Skull twice.
> To begin with I never understood why is Batman being singled out for not killing his villains when 99% of superheroes don't do it either ? Because Batman made it his thing. Most Superheroes would cheer on Seal Team 6 taking out Bin Ladin. Batman would spit at them and tell them "Killing him means they're just as bad as him."
And Batman has the joker as his main enemy most other enemies are too strong to be killed or not without insane difficulty or don't really warrant death.
He's by far the one of the most popular superheroes ever created? I thought it'd be obvious. Also Batman is inherently a little edgier, so the fact he doesn't kill is usually more surprising than others.
That's a meaningless question. Other characters who don't are less well known. Or their villains are less overtly murderous. Whereas Joker openly just loves killing people.
The issue is that most of the other villains are usually superpowered beings that the hero either CAN'T kill,or has the means to be removed permanently without killing them(like 99% of Clark or Wondy). Batman's villains......are just bad people who don't wanna change,in a system that would've executed them AGES ago.Like Bruce could execute every single villain he has with a bullet to the head because of how awful they are and every single person in Gotham would cheer him like it was a post-arc party in one piece.
> The issue is that most of the other villains are usually superpowered beings that the hero either CAN'T kill,or has the means to be removed permanently without killing them thats literally the biggest lie ever told. Wonder Woman and Superman don't have means to permanently get rid of people or have a plethora of rogues who are immortal, lmao
>thats literally the biggest lie ever told No,that's the political system. >Wonder Woman and Superman don't have means to permanently get rid of people or have a plethora of rogues who are immortal, lmao I.......know that was my point.It's why people don't usually complain about them not killing their opponents since it's a lot harder to get rid of someone like Braniac or even metallo surprisingly,or in Wonder woman's case....all of hers.Bruce by contrast has no reason not to pop a cap in joker or penguin after seeing the courts let them free for the hundredth time.
Okay except, i think you didn't read what i said. Because you *can* get rid of Brainiac AND Metallo extremely easily (well, brainiac less so because he probably has a back up of himself or some shit cause idk he just does) Wonder Woman's rogues are also like... half just regular ass people or people with powers that if killed will infact die and wonder woman has the means to murder them. SO they are literally *just* as bad as batman if not more so because Superman doesn't have a rule for not killing and like can legitimately kill almost everyone one of his rogue gallery if he wanted to and wonder woman *has* killed a few of her rogues in the past and just decides not to for others.
Superman does have a rule against killing. It's been the subject of stories like Kingdom Come and Action Comics #775. Wonder Woman doesn't have a rule against killing but she also doesn't view killing as her modus operandi. The villains she doesn't kill are either victims of brainwashing and manipulation by another villain (the Silver Swans), simply don't or can't cause nearly as much death and mayhem as the likes of the Joker (generally any villain that isn't a deity or long-lived sorcerer) or are too powerful for her to kill in the first place (the likes of Ares or Circe).
Superman doesn't have a no killing rule like batman does. He has a belief/ideal that heroes shouldn't kill cause all life is precious Where as batman is 'I will not kill period because it's my personal rule and to violate it is to violate batman'
This is a distinction without a difference.
There's a blatant difference as Superman has committed murder multiple times through the years when he realizes he has no other option but to do such or is in a situation he has no choice but to. Where as batman has done it once and was fully prepared to die/cease to be who he was because of it. Superman could at any moment kill his villains and it wouldn't be an actual necessary abstraction to who he is as long as he was convinced there was nothing that he could do to stop them otherwise. (I'm not counting the awful injustice shit as anything remotely reliable for what would happen to him if he did kill someone like joker.) (Ignoring of course the golden years before he had his rule in place- for batman)
Both Batman and Superman have killed multiple times. It's just that it was treated as if it didn't count because the villains weren't human. Batman even once told Gorilla Grodd that his rule doesn't apply to apes. DC will have these two kill and write it off because the people they killed weren't human or just pretend it doesn't happen the next time they want to tear down a hero who kills to prop up Superman and Batman.
>To begin with I never understood why is Batman being singled out for not killing his villains when 99% of superheroes don't do it either ? Part of this, for me, is the 'if you kill a killer, the number of killers in the world remains the same' argument that gets used for him.
An argument that shouldn’t be used because Batman has never said that.
Not if that killer has already killed before. Like Batman, who’s killed plenty of people though his many runs. So if you’re already a killer, then killing a killer would reduce the number of killers
Kill me
What?
>To begin with I never understood why is Batman being singled out for not killing his villains when 99% of superheroes don't do it either ? Most superheroes don't have someone as vile as the Joker in their rogues and even if they do, just stopping them is considered hard enough because they of their powers. Spider-Man probably couldn't kill Carnage even if he wanted to because of how powerful he is. The Joker is just a human, yet is at times written as being more omnipotent than God. Furthermore, most superheroes don't have nearly as many stories about not killing as Batman.
Batman has saved Joker a number of times. He has stopped other heroes from killing him. And when the court was going to kill him. He helped his defense .
If Joker dies, some troubled teen who calls himself “smiley” will just take his place If Joker gets executed for a crime that he didn’t commit, while the actual perpetrator gets free, you get thousands of smileys around Gotham
He helped stop the court because joker was being framed- and batman doesn't exactly like someone breaking the law.
Of all the innocent people to fight for, he fights for the joker. He could have let the courts kill him and then get the real killer.
AH yes, that doesn't set a horrible precedent or anything for people to do. Also pretty sure would intercede in a majority of cases if he had reason or knowledge to do such.
Joker has committed enough crimes that I balk to believe he could be framed with anything that would get him killed. Either Gotham does executions and he's dead long before, or not.
Yeah it's definetly like a storyline that really doesn't make sense, I mean hell jokers literally on the stand threatening everyone with a knife edit; okay there wasn't a knife involved re-reading, i dont know why i thought he had a knife
Hell they can simply like you said pretty much point to his numerous murders an execute him for that.
People need to understand that superhero comics are stories that aren't supposed to end thus DC will do whatever necessary to keep the status quo like not letting Batman kill villains are keeping Gotham in perpetual misery.
People need to understand the reason why Batman hasn't killed the Joker or fixed the corruption in his city because he's in a medium where he'll always fight Joker and the war on crime till the end of time. That's just the nature of DC and Marvel comics. Their never ending stories and the heroes won't get definitive ends to their stories.
Doylist vs Watsonian. The meta reason is obvious, it's still dumb though.
It is dumb but that's the unfortunate nature of DC and Marvel Comics.
Hence, the complaints.
The problem with Batman (like all superheroes) is that the status quo is never allowed to change. Gotham must always be a shithole, the Joker can never die, Bruce can never resolve his trauma, etc.
> The guy is literally not obligated in any way to be a vigilante/superhero but he does it anyway, Vigilantism is against the law. Batman is specifically taking the law into his own hands because he believes the current system isn't working. If cops and lawyers could make Gotham safe you'd have to assume he would retire fulfilled. So having him go "Oh, but I can't possibly work outside the system in *that way* teehee" just makes him lukewarm. He's here because he doesn't think the police can get the job done, but he also not getting the job done. Yeah, the system should execute Joker, absolutely. But the system also shouldn't need someone like Batman. Gotham shouldn't need vigilantees, Batman has decided that it does and that he'll work outside the system. So saying it's not his fault when he gives Joker back to a system he knows doesn't work and... it doesn't work, doesn't add up. He's just got a line in the sand, and that line has meant hundreds or thousands of people have died. > Why doesn't batman buy gothic city if he is omni millionaire?because the problem is that the whole city is corrupt and in the hands of the mafia IRL we completely destroyed the Mafia through policing, social programs and the money to make those work. He has the funds to make things work outside the system, but it never seems to make a difference- Joker has an infinite amount of people willing to help him murder people.
Local policing and social programs had absolutely 0 affect on the decline of the mafia. The FBI reorganizing around giving a shit about crime families, the passing of RICO, the creation of witness protection, wiretapping, the legalization of their main sources of revenue, the weakening of unions, and the decline in local government authority were the contributors to the downfall of the mafia. All of these are federal solutions because local governments had no authority to stop these matters, the best thing Bruce Wayne could do for Gotham is create a national movement to garner federal interest in the city. His money would do little if he tried to tackle the problem in any other manner.
I’d like to add the mafia is still very much around. It’s just not as pervasive and disruptive to society anymore, so we don’t hear about it much
It's irrelevant. That's the point.
Idk if I’d say it’s irrelevant. It’s still very much so around. My point is that no system could fully get rid of organized crime, but a better, stronger system can mitigate its affect on the rest of society
Why not just lock the Joker away for life in a maximum-security prison? Surely Capital punishment is wrong.
Sure fine, but if that's not happening or not working, you've gotta make a choice
Batman can absolutely be using his money to undermine the corruption in the city- if the dude can fund warp drive capable starships for the justice league and space based bases with artificial gravity he can make sure that infrastructure and social services are so good in gotham that the crime rate would plummet. People don't become criminals because they are evil by nature, they do it because that's where the economic opportunities are. Any corruption that would undermine him fixing the city's economics can be where the cape and cowl come into play. Instead... just drives around in a rocket car beating up thugs. The stories only work when you make every criminal gleefully and irredeemably evil... and that just doesn't feel right anymore given the world outside my window as marvel would put it. tldr: Batman has the resources to do a hell of a lot more to help the citizens of gotham and straight up doesn't because at the end of the day his stories aren't that kind of power fantasy.
My point was that there is no point in throwing cash directly at it without first eliminating the gotica mafia (since they basically control the city's bureaucracy). Imagine if you create a social plan for unemployed citizens but these citizens are already working for the mafia, they will not stop being organized crime criminals (since they do not accept resignations) but they will be criminals with a perfectly legal social plan.
You can’t stop organized crime tho. I mean, every iteration of Batman has organized crime, regardless of how long the run is. Why can’t Bruce set up more social programs and strengthen the government institutions while fighting crime? He’s only one man. He can’t work fast enough to stop all organized crime before the next group forms. There’s also someone new coming to town to replace the last organization he took down. But if the citizens were given social programs to help them get on their feet and the local government started getting more and more up and up leaders that Bruce closely vets and funds, then there’d start being less reason for people to join the mob or fall to corruption
> You can’t stop organized crime tho. RICO did. There's a reason you never hear about the Mafia or any similar scaled enterprise anymore.
jesus christ
It's Henry!
Oh I’m sorry. Is there no more organized crime anymore because of RICO? I didn’t realize gangs no longer exist. I guess the mafia is no longer around (it very much so is still). The reason you don’t hear about it is because society has developed to not let it be so pervasive. Not because of RICO. The mafia is still very much so around. Gangs, depending on their structures, are also organized crime. So no, organized crime hasn’t gone anywhere. It’s just changed how it operates
Yes there's still small scale organised crime, but the idea of a Mafia like organisation that can flout the law and holds a city in their hands is long gone.
Is it? Or have they just gotten better at hiding? The mafia is still very active in states like NY, NJ, and IL. Such a sophisticated power structure wouldnt just disappear, even with the laws that have passed since the mafia’s heyday
What evidence do you have that the mafia is still very active
The fbi… you know your phone/computer comes with the internet, right? This isn’t some closely guarded secret only a select few have access to lol
If they have a legal social plan... they aren't criminals anymore. If you make sure normal gotham citizens can get good jobs and good paychecks and good social services... the mobsters lose their rank and file soldiers. Walter White became a criminal cuz of his medical debt- batman can wipe away the medical debt of every citizen in gotham. The credit card debt. The student loans. He can pay everyone's rent for a year. He could build, and give away housing on private plans. The corruption at the top snarling against these plans actually sounds like a compelling batman story, as he basically forces all of these corrupting influences to surface at once to fight against him undermining them. My point is you can still absolutely tell cool batman stories without falling back on a billionaire beating up poor people who never really had an option in life. I know people HATE calling that out but frankly the more modern you push batman's stories the more you kind of can't ignore that aspect. If we go back to him just being a sort of rich weirdo who lives in a mansion on the outskirts of time in a 1930s setting than sure, classic batman still works. Modern times where he can buy and sell small nations and not feel a dent in his wallet? Nah, he can do more than run around punching people.
Batman does do those things though, he's funded many systems in attempt to help the city and guide people away from crime. He's been showcased just straight up hiring criminals off the street so they can make money legally.He pays for any damages he causes. Supports the families of police officers that die. The real problem is that DC won't let Gotham actually improve the comics have to keep going indefinitely.
Bro Batman is literally the biggest philanthropist in Gotham City what are you talking about??? Ever heard of the Wayne foundation?? Batman corp?? The fact that he also uses his money to help the justice league should be praised more, he is literally saving the planet, how is that wrong or worse than spending it on Gotham?? Batman is a godsend to the DC universe and should be praised to hell and back, yeah he fucks up from time to time, but cmon, saving the planet is THE most important thing a person could EVER do for humanity and Batman has done it many times.
This is what I'm talking about. Explain to me what the wayne foundation has actionably done in gotham. Like, what does it fund, what does it do? It sounds good, it lets you check a box on "batman uses his money to help because it says he does" but in the end there's always more abandoned warehouses and always more goons that turn to crime. Next you're gunna talk bring up the curse that supposedly is worked into the bones of gotham (that batman has never gotten the literal gods and epic sorcerers he works with to look for a solution to). It becomes utterly insane to read a contemporary story where he's roughing up thugs to find where a missing girl is or whatever when in a justice league story he has a satellite that can track the flash in real time or whatever. I swear people just fully shut their brains off when aspects of batman are criticized. There's no discourse, just excuses being made for writers being lazy! Batman could literally just pay for every single mob goon in gotham to just retire in luxury and the mob enforcement would be crippled. I'm not saying he \*should\* do this, but when you look at what normal billionaires can do in the real world and then look at batman's fictional nonsense comic world you can see he's actually doing \*less\* than them!
Funds hospitals and free clinics, employs and pays for the college tuition of at risk youth, builds and repairs infrastructure in poorer neighborhoods, funded countless businesses after Cataclysm, covers tuition of all Wayne Enterprises employees, rebuilt Gotham after No Man’s Land, builds low income housing, fixed the transit system, etc
Then simply put gotham shouldn't be as bad as it is.
It’s not quite the hellhole it’s usually made out to be. Bad, sure, but the murder rate has gone down ever since Batman started his career. And most of the worst stuff that happens is just villains taking over the city or doing big schemes that wouldn’t be much affected by the positive things that Bruce Wayne does with his money.
Except he does nightly patrols and regularly stops violent crimes that are practically military outfits with how geared up they are.
That doesn’t negate the fact that the murder rate has canonically gone down and most of the crime observably comes from villains.
Wayne foundation is a farmaceutical company, it basically is charity to help those in need and fund free clinics, he also made the Victims Program, to aid financially to victims of crime, and also built public transit, orphanages and free schools and scholarships, fundraisers, infrastructure, etc. But sadly there have been lots of issues with his efforts, corruption within the foundation, Joker attacking the WF building, Penguin and Two Face fucking up his plans, etc. Eventually Bruce ended up broke, but Gotham city is better than ever by far in the comics thanks to him. Now onto the curse, there's been like 4 explanations of the curse, 2 regarding Lazarus pits, one regarding where Gotham was constructed and Barbaross and one where it's stated that the water supply was fucked by Thomas a long time ago, and that this is responsible for how Gotham is, all of them are kinda dealt with, the biggest Lazarus pit there was in Gotham is currently destroyed, the Barbaross curse was dealt with, since it needed constant sacrifices in Arkham, wich were stopped by the Batfam and the Thomas one was debunked by Batman, there's no curse, and Gotham is thriving thanks to Bruce's efforts, there's less villains, more heroes, less crime and corruption, and the next generation will be better thanks to the Batfam and all the work put out towards helping children, they will have Hope as well, that's what Batman was all about, and Nightwing will do that from now on instead of Bruce, so the futures bright for Gotham currently. But I don't excuse shitty writing, it's true that Batman SHOULD use the tower infinitely more, it's op, if he can also invent robots like Failsafe, he should, but he has helped SO much, it's unreal, mans a saint.
That's not how social services and infrastructure work at all.
...Yes it is. Its fact that the more economic opportunities available, support networks, and social services the less crime there is because the less people turn to it to make a living. All of those things are within batman's power to influence for the better and are utterly ignored most batman stories.
No its not. It objectively isn't how it works in practice.
I mean... it is. You're eating the wrong propaganda my friend.
First off downvoting? Really? Second off- no it isn't. You can't just *create* social services and infrastructure and cure homelessness or not having jobs or any myriad of issues that the less fortunate have.
There are literally social programs doing this
'doing this' you mean working to do it and the problem isn't actually going away or just vanishing and its been trying to do such for nearly 60 years now in some cases? hmmm.... weird...
To put in my own two cents (from what I have personally observed, only a single data point), while social services CAN help…they are not the sole contributing factor or even the greatest factor. That comes down more to community and family culture. I have personally witnessed entire swaths of families be given a lot of state money to help their children go to school and college, along with free school supplies, tuition grants, stipends for this and that, etc.. Often the money is blown on stupid things, the supplies are tossed in the trash (it’s not ‘cool’ to look like you’re trying in school), and tuition is worthless since the kids don’t bother showing up to class or paying attention. To quote an old adage, you can do everything in your power to get a horse to water, up to and including physically forcing its head under the surface…but if it doesn’t want to drink it will NOT drink. I’m not a social expert, but Bruce throwing a lot of money and starting a lot of social programs yet Gotham still staying in a bad shape is not unrealistic to me. Yes, that stuff could certainly help a good number of people (the horses that very much do want to drink and now have ample opportunities and ease of access) but by no means will it magically make them want to. Off the top, the mafia have a very vested interest in keeping the people of Gotham weak and poor (it’s how they consolidate power) and have a number of ways to act that money cannot directly challenge. Several of officers, judges, DAs, etc. have already accepted bribes; that’s dirt that the mafia can use to blackmail them and ruin their lives unless they play ball. Scale that to the social programs; superintendents in Gotham ISD that send the money up to the bosses through slushes rather than improving the schools and hiring more teachers, mayors that send it up to the bosses through slushes rather than building more houses or better roads and wheeled infrastructure. Hell, IRL California has raised billions in trying to combat homelessness and failed hard with most critics pointing out the money was probably slushed.
Basically this yeah. The programs *in theory* would solve everything if it was just theory. However in application they are flawed because of corruption, people themselves either misusing them or just not wanting to use them because of pride or something, and a lot of general other issues that just come up in life essentially. Gotham is better than it has ever been but its because of Batman doing batman things *in addition* to his programs and the like. However even with those two things obviously theres the giant elephant in the room that is 'SUPER VILLAINS' and like, grundy one day just rampaging through your workplace and all of a sudden the program doesnt really work anymore cause theres a sudden influx of people needing new jobs and shit and the system becomes stressed and can just start breaking apart. Saying all Bruce needs to do is the systems/programs absolutely just doesn't work.
Batman: 0 Park Bench: 1
What happened to the overdone rule?
He can put away Joker for good without killing him. But he doesnt. Just look at his contingency plans for the league if they turn rogue. It doesnt outright kill them, it puts them out of commission for a long while. And what is the problem if the whole Gotham is corrupt? Batman doesnt even play fair, could have used the corruption in his advantage. If he could play jla heroes and villains around, what stops it from working against the mafia? Lazy writing?
My main issue with him is the insane plot armour given to him, and that toxic fans use as a weapon
I love how every argument against batman killing the joker is "he does have to," like that was the point. He has the means, and the moral high ground, pretty much exclusively.
You know, batman is probably not that rich. Think about it, the premis of "court of owl" Is they are the richest players and families in gotham, but Bruce was only invited a couple of years down the line and iirc Thomas wasn't invited or was invited, but can refuse without reprecution.
Bruh saying it's the state's fault means you don't understand comics. The entire idea is other than heroes, villains and their associated people everyone else is an absolute moron. Expecting the state to kill joker is like expecting a fish to fly.
>The guy is literally not obligated in any way to be a vigilante/superhero but he does it anyway, Which makes the fact he's against killing but is okay with torture, assault, privacy violation, stockpiling of illegal weaponry, possible embezzlement, child endangerment and child abuse incredibly hypocritical. Bruce has not problem dangling people off buildings or punching his own son when he's trying to communicate with him but putting a bullet in a guy who's basically a walking disaster in human form is where he draws the line. And this wouldn't even be so bad if he didn't act like he owns Gotham any time another hero tries to operate there. Yeah, the system is screwed up, which is why Batman exists in the first place. That the Joker is still a problem all this time shows that Batman is just as useless as the police and the courts.
The funny thing about the Joker is that before he was written to be some vile terrorist that would be tried and executed under normal circumstances, you could've argued that he was actually insane. The super-sanity thing and claiming everything he did was calculated and planned was just a bad idea.
My only problem with Batman stories is how it portrays mentally ill people and the wrongful diagnoses it makes to it's villains many of which aren't mentally ill. Also it should be noted damn near no Batman villain is criminally insane they're all aware of their actions and that they're illegal in the real world they'd all be found criminally sane and be sent to jail or in the US deathrow. So one of the problems here is that the writers literally don't know what insanity is (or maybe the Batman world just has a radically different definition of insanity than ours). About the character himself I guess my only thing to point out is that he should put his villains in way safer places. In Injustice he managed to get a cell that Superman couldn't escape from I'm sure he could find one of those for Joker. But no instead he just puts him and the others in Arkham again and again and again and he doesn't seem to realize that that just doesn't work. Though I guess this is a problem with the comics medium more than it is with Bruce Wayne if they just found a way to contain the villains there would be no more Batman stories they have to escape somehow.
Why is it every time I see a comment like this its clear they don't have any idea what mental illness actually is or how it works.
You're saying I have no idea what it is? Could you explain why if that's the case?
Because they *are* mentally ill. You have to be legitimately 100% ignorant of what mental illness is at large if you don't think the rogues have a mental illness. Also as for 'insanity' half of them *would* meet the definition of it because even if they understand right and wrong, they still have a compulsion or calling/pulling/whatever word you want to use *to commit* the wrong actions and its sometimes so strong they legit can't stop themselves which *is* part of a insanity defense (or one of the things that can be argued under insanity) If were just picking any one random example, Riddler has OCD and NPD- both are categorized as a mental illness. Riddler's is so bad that he infact *could not* stop himself from committing crimes even when he had amnesia and was a legitimate good guy who wasn't a villain or anything of the sort.
Well I never said most of them didn't have a mental illness. I was referring to guys like Mr. Freeze, Penguin, Ra's and maybe Ivy when I said many of which aren't mentally ill. On insanity first of all the compulsion aspect being added in is something that varies from one country/state to another. And even with the compulsion condition most of them don't have compulsions which make them commit crimes they have compulsions for stuff like coin tosses to help them make decisions. And on that besides Two-Face, Riddler and Humpty Dumpty I don't know any other villain which has compulsions they can't control most of them do the stuff they do out of their own free will. The only guy that has a compulsion specifically for comitting crimes is as you said Riddler and him I imagine would be found insane if the place he was tried in had that compulsion condition added into the insanity defense. But I can correct my previous comment, any villain who knows what's real and what's not and is choosing to commit crimes out of their free will would not be found insane. Hopefully that makes it better. Also you said NPD is classified as a mental illness and that's dubious there's a [big debate going on whether or not personality disorders are mental illness](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/distinction-between-personality-disorder-and-mental-illness/F4FC446AEB38B5704ED132245F86E93B#:~:text=Psychiatrists%2C%20and%20perhaps%20British%20psychiatrists%20more%20than%20most%2C%20are%20ambivalent%20about%20whether%20to%20regard%20personality%20disorders%20as%20mental%20illnesses.%20Until%20recently%2C%20there%20was%20no%20compelling%20reason%20for%20attempting%20to%20resolve%20the%20issue). The US law doesn't consider them as illness you can look that up if you don't believe me.
Why did you link a paper that states it's a british/UK thing that doesn't consider them mental illness and then state 'the US law doesn't consider them as illness' also that paper is from 2002... Which- the US law doesn't *have* to consider them anything. You're correct though that mental illness as a term is like... 'a law' thing and psychology itself is moving away from that term in general though. The field of psychology considers it a disorder just the same as most the 'insanity defense' disorders are considered.
Is [this paper](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3811091/#:~:text=Personality%20disorders%20have%20a,often%2C%20under%20volitional%20control) better? It's strictly from the USA and it's from 2013. I can find a more recent one if you prefer that. >Which- the US law doesn't *have* to consider them anything. It kind of does. It's the US law that decides whether or not you're criminally insane and so what US law considers mental illness is very important. >You're correct though that mental illness as a term is like... 'a law' thing and psychology itself is moving away from that term in general though. Unfortunately. They should make distinctions instead of lumping everything together under the disorder label. >The field of psychology considers it a disorder just the same as most the 'insanity defense' disorders are considered. That's not true at all. [Insanity pleas constitute less than 1% of all criminal defenses (regardless of whether the criminals have a disorder) and even then it's very hard to have them work](https://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/insanity/#:~:text=In%20reality%2C%20however%2C%20various%20criminal,about%2030%20cases%20every%20year). Here's another [source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1786413/#:~:text=Overall%2C%20the%20insanity%20defense%20was%20raised%20in%20one%20percent%20of%20all%20felony%20cases.%20Further%2C%20only%2026%20percent%20of%20those%20raising%20the%20insanity%20defense%20were%20actually%20acquitted%20NGRI). Where do you get this information from?
It's not better no, because it's again only talking about the law. Also I have zero idea what you're even responding to with the last paragraph and sources. Are you even reading what you replied too? Like: I have zero faith you actually know about mental disorders/illness or any actual psychology and you're just arguing semantics about criminal insanity.
Look most Batman villains wouldn't be found criminally insane. Almost all of them are aware of what they're doing and very very few of them have compulsions which make them commit crimes. They don't meet the [insanity definition](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal_insanity), I don't know what to tell you. Neither through the M'Naghten rule nor through the irresistible impulse test. About the personality disorders as far as I'm aware there's some ambiguity as to whether they're mental illnesses or not. A sizable amount of criminals have PDs if I went by what you say I'd think all of them should be in psychiatric hospitals. Edit: And also even psychologists agree that many of the batman villains [don't fit into any diagnosis](https://bookriot.com/batman-and-mental-illness/#:~:text=When%20I%20spoke%20to%20Dr.%20Langley%20about%20the%20depiction%20of%20mental%20illness%20in%20Batman%20comics%2C%20he%20also%20pointed%20out%20that%20many%20of%20the%20villainous%20characters%20defy%20diagnosis%3A%20they%20are%20described%20as%20%E2%80%9Cmad%2C%E2%80%9D%20but%20their%20symptoms%20do%20not%20match%20up%20with%20any%20illness%20in%20particular) despite being called insane. You claim I don't know anything but you still haven't presented any evidence/source for any of your claims. You've only rambled on while thinking you know so much more.
Okay, so you're just confirming what I've said the entire time that you don't actually know about psychology.
I feel like Two Face would probably get by in a court
I assume you're saying he'd be found insane. Can he tell what's real and what's not apart from each other? I heard he runs a criminal organization that indicates a high degree of awareness and mental competence. Off of that alone he probably wouldn't be found insane.
He flips a coin for every decision he makes, and after half his face was burned off he has an obsession of acting like he has dual personal for each or actually has one, depending on the adaptation or comic.
Maybe the dual personality could make a good case for his insanity defense in the stories he has it (though I don't think a criminally insane dual personality having person could run a crime empire like he does). All the others things are just quirks or unique characteristics they don't make him insane.
Someone flipping a coin on life and death decisions is not just a quirk. Sombody who legitimatelt leaves their fate and plans up to pure chance, has become a criminal due to a traumatic experience that mutilayed him, and has a split personality qould absolutely be able to legally claim insanity.
Well first of all most Two Face versions don't have a split personality (or at least don't show DID symptoms). You're making a faulty generalization. Secondly, flipping a coin for big decisions doesn't make you criminally insane. Just because something seems weird or alien to you doesn't make it criminal insanity. Here's the [definition of it](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal_insanity#:~:text=Criminal%20insanity%20refers%20to%20a%20mental%20illness%20or%20disease%20that%20makes%20it%20impossible%20for%20a%C2%A0defendant%C2%A0to%20know%20they%20were%20committing%20a%20crime%20or%20to%20understand%20that%20their%20actions%20are%20wrong.%20A%20defendant%20found%20to%20be%20criminally%20insane%20can%20assert%20an%C2%A0insanity%20defense). >qould absolutely be able to legally claim insanity. Everyone is able to legally claim insanity. Whether or not the judge/jury accepts the claim is another story.
Ventriliquist, Babydoll, Mr. Freeze, Two Face, Magpie, Doodlebug, Professor Pyg, The Penguin, Humpty Dumpty, Azrael, Clayface, Mad Hatter, and The Riddler are all verifiably insane. And that's just off the top of my head. It's arguable Poison Ivy's sudden connection to The Green made her that way too, though she was already an ecoterrorist before that.
Once again what DC comics says is criminally insane and what's criminally insane in the real world are different things. Also Penguin is verifiably insane? That's a very wild take I'm gonna need a source for that no Batman story I've ever seen claims Penguin is insane. About Ivy I'm pretty sure there are comics which explicitly say she's not insane. Same with Freeze.
The idea that a rogue actor should kill people is kind of absurd to me. Should Batman kill other obviously guilty people? Keep in mind that history is littered with people obviously guilty of the worst crimes rape, murder, etc that wound up not being so guilty. Does Batman feel comfortable knowing that his human biases may influence him to enact the most serious of punishments on people in a biased manner. The joker is an edge case sure and I surely wouldn’t fault Batman for killing him, but it’s rather arbitrary when things stop being an edge case. Also saying that it is someone’s moral responsibility to kill another person is extreme.
Eventually, you become an adult and realize superhero shows/movies are for children. Suspension of disbelief can only carry you so far. When you're a kid, you can see it as "Batman is the good guy and would never do bad stuff!!" but as you become an adult, you realize that he's almost as much a villain as The Joker. His inaction has lead to the death of hundreds (depending on the comic, millions lol) and is culpable for that. At some point "the hero" would do what was the right thing for the greater good and "euthanize the rabid dog." And hell, not even "the hero." Any person who had the ability to bring the Joker's murderous reign to an end, would. It really does seem like he's the bored billionaire who needs bad guys to fight because his life would be all the more boring if they weren't around. If you couldn't already tell, Batman was a childhood hero who left me utterly disappointed when I grew old enough to understand how ineffectual he really was and how the concept of "heroes" in general was just so ridiculous lol