Exactly. All people are equal...some are just more equal than others.RatGouf said:Poor Lives Matter! Don't water this down by saying "We are all 100%"!
....
/sarcasm?
'Two face good, One face bad'? Or perhaps 'No vigilante shall sleep in a bed with sheets'?LysanderNemoinis said:Exactly. All people are equal...some are just more equal than others.RatGouf said:Poor Lives Matter! Don't water this down by saying "We are all 100%"!
....
/sarcasm?
People keep saying this, and it's wrong. Bruce Wayne does provide extensive campaign contributions to proper leaders and job programs, operates and funds numerous charities, funds the police department and Arkham, and so on in addition to running around at night punching bad guys in the face. Bruce Wayne is attacking crime on every level he possibly could, but the problem is that Gotham is such a royally screwed up place with such deep rooted corruption that despite Wayne doing literally everything humanly possible to put an end to crime there it ultimately does nothing. It doesn't help that the writers go out of their way to ensure that Gotham not only stays royally screwed up but keep mounting it every single issue either.Nurb said:Instead of extensive campaign comtributions to proper leaders and jobs programs, he spends his money on gadgets and bat caves and vehicles so he and punch poor people in the face!
Unless Batman/Wayne is on the jury that hands down the conviction and sentencing, no he is not responsible for that decision. Would you hold the arresting officers responsible for a death sentence? No because they're not the jury, they're just putting the cuffs on the accused and giving the evidence, motive, etc. to the DA to prosecute. The DA chooses the charge and if the charge happens to fall under the capitol punishment laws (if they exist in that state, whatever state Gotham is in) then he/she can seek the death penalty but the decision doesn't come from the DA either, the jury still has the power to decide, if they convict the accused, whether or not a death sentence is warranted.JLF said:Does Gotham have the death penalty? And if so if Batman captures a criminal and the criminal is sentenced to death. Does that not make Batman responsible for killing a person?
It's said more of as a joke, but I'd like to see Batman beat some asshole politician like Rove up over corruption for a change.immortalfrieza said:People keep saying this, and it's wrong. Bruce Wayne does provide extensive campaign contributions to proper leaders and job programs, operates and funds numerous charities, funds the police department and Arkham, and so on in addition to running around at night punching bad guys in the face. Bruce Wayne is attacking crime on every level he possibly could, but the problem is that Gotham is such a royally screwed up place with such deep rooted corruption that despite Wayne doing literally everything humanly possible to put an end to crime there it ultimately does nothing. It doesn't help that the writers go out of their way to ensure that Gotham not only stays royally screwed up but keep mounting it every single issue either.Nurb said:Instead of extensive campaign comtributions to proper leaders and jobs programs, he spends his money on gadgets and bat caves and vehicles so he and punch poor people in the face!
That said, it's probably Batman's outright refusal to kill these nutjobs he fights every other week despite how ridiculous obvious it is that they NEED to and DESERVE to die that above all else that causes crime to be as pervasive as it is. The number of deaths and tragedies that could have been avoided if Batman had done so within the first few of those villain's appearances is astronomical. Of course, we all know that the REAL reason Batman refuses to kill is the same reason all the other superheroes refuse to kill, so the writers don't have to think up a new villain every single time.
Yes that is quite true the decision is made by the jurors and the killing would be done by an appointed executioner. But would Batman still not be (at least partly) responsible for a mans death. The crimes that many of the perpetrators have committed would with a high probability be sentenced to death (if death sentence is possible in Gotham) if they would be captured by law officials. So if Batman is aware of the implications of capture would that not be a "secondary" killing?Imperioratorex Caprae said:Unless Batman/Wayne is on the jury that hands down the conviction and sentencing, no he is not responsible for that decision. Would you hold the arresting officers responsible for a death sentence? No because they're not the jury, they're just putting the cuffs on the accused and giving the evidence, motive, etc. to the DA to prosecute. The DA chooses the charge and if the charge happens to fall under the capitol punishment laws (if they exist in that state, whatever state Gotham is in) then he/she can seek the death penalty but the decision doesn't come from the DA either, the jury still has the power to decide, if they convict the accused, whether or not a death sentence is warranted.JLF said:Does Gotham have the death penalty? And if so if Batman captures a criminal and the criminal is sentenced to death. Does that not make Batman responsible for killing a person?
While Batman works outside of the law involving enforcing said law on criminals in a manner that cops cannot do, once he gives up custody to the police the actual law enforcement officers and the DA take over for the responsibility of booking the perp, then the DA and Judges arraign said perp, and the DA takes over the case to move to a grand jury if the case is deemed a possible death penalty.JLF said:Yes that is quite true the decision is made by the jurors and the killing would be done by an appointed executioner. But would Batman still not be (at least partly) responsible for a mans death. The crimes that many of the perpetrators have committed would with a high probability be sentenced to death (if death sentence is possible in Gotham) if they would be captured by law officials. So if Batman is aware of the implications of capture would that not be a "secondary" killing?
I appreciate your thorough reply. You have valid arguments that one can not be assigned direct blame over a institutionalized legal system. And also one can not directly (and practically) blame Batman for their deaths. My first post can be interpreted as how one can lay ("outside blame") fault on Batman over a man's death.Imperioratorex Caprae said:While Batman works outside of the law involving enforcing said law on criminals in a manner that cops cannot do, once he gives up custody to the police the actual law enforcement officers and the DA take over for the responsibility of booking the perp, then the DA and Judges arraign said perp, and the DA takes over the case to move to a grand jury if the case is deemed a possible death penalty.JLF said:Yes that is quite true the decision is made by the jurors and the killing would be done by an appointed executioner. But would Batman still not be (at least partly) responsible for a mans death. The crimes that many of the perpetrators have committed would with a high probability be sentenced to death (if death sentence is possible in Gotham) if they would be captured by law officials. So if Batman is aware of the implications of capture would that not be a "secondary" killing?
The chain of custody ends with the jury and executioner being the parties responsible. Batman trusts in the law of the land to handle the criminals in custody, and to clear up something, in Arkham Origins there is a setpiece involving capital punishment with the Calendar Man so if we go by that universe then at least one Gotham City in the multiverse does indeed have a death penalty.
So I'm not going to assign any blame to Batman if a criminal goes on trial and ends up with the death penalty. He may not like it but its not his choice, nor is it his responsibility to bear.
I just don't believe in assigning blame that far up the custody chain, only because its out of his hands once the justice system starts working. Its ridiculous to assign that blame. Its somewhat akin to blaming parents for their children becoming scummy adults. Responsibility for said actions or decisions must be laid bare at the feet of those who take said action or decision. Otherwise every person who touched said case that ended in a death penalty, the witnesses, the possible expert testimony from various renowned smart folk, the cop who handles the evidence in the lock-up, the cop that put the accused in a holding cell before arraignment, the DA, the arraignment court judge, the trial judge, the jury, every paralegal that worked on said case... the list can go on and on.
And that's absurd to place the weight of a death sentence on every one of those people who had some part of responsibility both for keeping the convicted confined and those who arrested them and those who had any part involved in prosecuting them. Hell you can even blame the warden and the doctor that ensures said convict is in good health before they execute them, the priest if said convict is religious... Why not go all the way up the chain and blame the people who created the various execution possibilities, the inventor of the gas chamber, the electric chair, etc.? That logic is somewhat ludicrous.
Simplicity, not complexity. These issues are extremely simple but people want to confuse them, twist them and I don't get why. Its plain and simple to me, the chain of custody for the perpetrator/accused ends at the trial phase because once a verdict is handed down, unless there's a miracle appeal turnover or stay of execution by the governor. Attempting to lay blame to Batman affects so many other people by way of that chain of custody from Bats to the chair, chamber, firing squad.
I don't know. You see Batman lives in a world of magic, science, with known afterlife (the JLA fought literal Angels at one point), where people come back from the dead all the time. Do you really want the Joker to come back as some sort of demon?immortalfrieza said:That said, it's probably Batman's outright refusal to kill these nutjobs he fights every other week despite how ridiculous obvious it is that they NEED to and DESERVE to die that above all else that causes crime to be as pervasive as it is. The number of deaths and tragedies that could have been avoided if Batman had done so within the first few of those villain's appearances is astronomical. Of course, we all know that the REAL reason Batman refuses to kill is the same reason all the other superheroes refuse to kill, so the writers don't have to think up a new villain every single time.
The possibility of the Joker being gone forever by killing him Vs. the certainty he's going to be back over and over and over again? If I lived in the DC universe I'd definitely take the former option. Besides, if the Joker did come back as a demon killing him over and over would be just like putting him back in Arkham anyway, and at least then there would be a halfway rational excuse NOT to kill the sorts of people this nuts if it actually happened.WolfThomas said:I don't know. You see Batman lives in a world of magic, science, with known afterlife (the JLA fought literal Angels at one point), where people come back from the dead all the time. Do you really want the Joker to come back as some sort of demon?immortalfrieza said:That said, it's probably Batman's outright refusal to kill these nutjobs he fights every other week despite how ridiculous obvious it is that they NEED to and DESERVE to die that above all else that causes crime to be as pervasive as it is. The number of deaths and tragedies that could have been avoided if Batman had done so within the first few of those villain's appearances is astronomical. Of course, we all know that the REAL reason Batman refuses to kill is the same reason all the other superheroes refuse to kill, so the writers don't have to think up a new villain every single time.