Superheroes Don't Kill

[CrazyGirl17]

I'm not a fan of the notion, if only because I believe that certain evil individuals should be put down.

Admittedly, it has to do with comic book censorship, and was later justified in-universe as "being better than the villain" and out-of-universe as "keeping them alive so they can reappear again".

And yes, I agree with the post above me that superheroes are essentially police officers... so why can't the government lock the super villains away for life of just execute them? Superhero comics are already unrealistic...

 

[maninahat]

It really bothered me in Man of Steel that superman was depicted as being so upset at having to kill Zod. It was never established anywhere in this movie that Superman was against killing. For all we know, he might have had a temporary spin in the army, amongst being a fisherman/lumberjack/manly-job-man. With all the stupid long talks he had with his idiot dad, you'd think they'd have a scene in which they would actually discuss what it is to kill, thus setting up the actual dilemma superman was supposed to face at the end with Zod.

As a rule, I think it is perfectly good. I think the idea is that people like Batman and Superman are meant to be so good at what they do, they can stop a villain's mass murder plots and put them behind bars, mitigating any need to execute them. Had Arkham Asylum been anything other than a revolving door prison, Batman couldn't be blamed for his no kill policy.

The thing as well is that there is always a totalitarian bent in the premise of superheroes. They are people who operate beyond accountability and the law, often with a ridiculous amount of power in their hands alone. It's bad enough that Batman thinks its justified to torture criminals, spy on the public, or extradite foreign citizens, imagine how much worse it would be if he essentially went full Judge Dredd mode and started executing criminals?

That's why I like Kingdom Come, in which Superman has to grapple with this very issue. He ends up having to round up all the edgy, 90s superheroes and lock them away because they keep murdering each other (and causing terrible collateral damage).

 

[SidheKnight]

It's a stupid rule. Now, not murdering the Joker even if it's easier, that's fair enough. You've got the US government to kill him once he's in prison anyway.

Not killing him to prevent him killing others, the reason the police are armed. No...you're not going to have a miracle pop up every time to dodge the moral issue. You're going to have to kill him sooner or later.

Agreed.

I think it depends a lot on the particular superhero, but a good rule of thumb is "don't kill unless you absolutely have to", you know, just like real people.

If a criminal kidnapped my kids and threatened to kill them in front of me, I would not hesitate to kill him before he gets the chance, assuming I had a gun of course.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

"The rule" pretty much exists for 2 reasons:
1: Old comic book censorship rules, from back when comics were aimed strictly at kids.
2: It's difficult to make good villains if the hero continuously kills them.

I remember reading an interview with the guys who created "The Punisher" and they said one of the difficult things with the character was that it was tough to have recurring villains, because Castle just killed all the baddies, and so they basically had to choose between not putting a ton of thought into the bad guys, or continuously finding ways for them to cheat death (which would get dumb pretty quickly).

Does it get sort of ridiculous that Batman just keeps locking up his villians, only to have them escape prison over and over and over again? Yep, but considering the Villains are the big draw of Batman anyway, the writers want to keep them alive for as long as possible.

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

I really hate it, I absolutely loved the Daredevil series, but I hated his stupid rule on killing. I think it's what made the first season of Arrow (aside from how the writing and other things bogged the series down in later seasons) so good is that we finally had a Vigilante who just mowed down criminals instead of sticking to some bullshit moral code. It's also why I love the Punisher.

Killing being some sacred line you can't cross is bullshit. "No one deserves death" is bullshit too. How many more innocent deaths could Batman have prevented if he killed the Joker? Or if Daredevil wasted Kingpin?

Violence is a necessity (especially in todays world), sometimes taking a live is necessary. Some people just deserve to die.

I never got the logic that some Heroes who actually witness the atrocities the Villains commit are in less of a place to judge them than a Judge and Jury are only hearing accounts of what they did.

Here's the thing: what somebody deserves or doesn't deserve is not an objective truth; it varies from person to person. I may think this person deserves something, but someone else is bound to disagree. I honestly believe no one deserves to die, and while I understand that killing may be a necessity sometimes, it should never be viewed in a positive light.

Many criminals genuinely believe the people they hurt deserved their fate (why hurt them otherwise?), but that doesn't give them the right to hurt them; a number of crimes it's easy to understand why the person did what they did, but we still have to punish them.

One of the in-universe reasons for superheroes not killing is, as Bruce Wayne says in Batman Begins, is that compassion separates them from the villains. If villains resort to murder to accomplish their aims, and a superhero resorts to murder as well to accomplish their aims, what's the difference between a superhero and a villain? If Batman started killing, people might fear him the same way they fear the Joker or another villain.

In Injustice, Superman says that superheroes aren't gods and they don't have the right to determine who lives and dies, and Shazam says that there have to be limits on what superpowered beings can do.

There's a number of factors that enter into the question of whether superheroes should kill or not. Killing is a big deal, and should never be viewed lightly.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

I really hate it, I absolutely loved the Daredevil series, but I hated his stupid rule on killing. I think it's what made the first season of Arrow (aside from how the writing and other things bogged the series down in later seasons) so good is that we finally had a Vigilante who just mowed down criminals instead of sticking to some bullshit moral code. It's also why I love the Punisher.

Killing being some sacred line you can't cross is bullshit. "No one deserves death" is bullshit too. How many more innocent deaths could Batman have prevented if he killed the Joker? Or if Daredevil wasted Kingpin?

Violence is a necessity (especially in todays world), sometimes taking a live is necessary. Some people just deserve to die.

I never got the logic that some Heroes who actually witness the atrocities the Villains commit are in less of a place to judge them than a Judge and Jury are only hearing accounts of what they did.

Defence of Daredevil; as they point out in the show a lot of that is his catholic upbringing (can't remember the actual line but I think Foggy said words to the effect the catholic guilt would practically kill him if he did murder Fisk) and that's always been on the edge of how Daredevil handles things both in comics and the TV series. It's not a bullshit moral code, it's something Murdock holds deadly important; it's how he can justify doing what he does when he compares himself to the Russian, he isn't just another criminal vying for control of the city, he lets the cops and due process handle things and when that's corrupt? He'll find a way to make it work, he's a lawyer for christ's sake, he can work out how to use the law to his advantage and will actually try to work within it (beating up criminals and getting them arrested? You're dispensing vigilante justice. Killing criminals for crimes? then you're a fucking SERIAL KILLER).

OT: With a few exceptions (Wolverine and the Punisher most importantly) superheroes are meant to be a kind of idealised stand-in for morality so we strive not to kill them. The movie versions do tend to be a little bit more... loose with the whole killing people thing, though usually in justified scenarios (i.e. Cap VS Nazis or Cap VS trained military operatives in a open combat); which they sort of lampshade in Age of Ultron (Cap at the very least seems aware that they are killers, Banner feels incredibly guilty for his rampage.)

It helps that not ALL super villains are raging psychotics. The Joker is a special case of 'absolutely should be executed, jesus christ, why do you keep sending him to Arkham Asylum, it's his fucking holiday home', but the bulk of Batman's rogue's gallery (focusing on him since Joker is the go to for this stuff) are legitimately mentally ill. Maxie Zeus who believes is the Greek God of Lightning, the man is sick, I'm not comfortable with him being murdered in the street because he robbed a few banks. Mr Freeze, the guy who desperately wants to save his wife, beaten to death in an alley for stealing some diamond. Two-face who has been succesfully reformed by the system until a relapse was triggered? Should all these guys be killed by Batman?

Or, hey, what about the Flash's rogue gallery? the Rogues who all try incredibly hard not to murder victims in their crimes. I mean, they're just guys with guns, Allen could kill them in microseconds, who cares right?

This is kind of the issue with Superhero morality, it's very easy to black/white it because that's how they're written. But some other writers have made an effort to show how that standard is kind of f*cked up. I mean, the Punisher at one point had a breakdown and mowed down anyone he saw JAYWALKING. That whole storyline felt like it was mean to be pointing out the hypocrisy in rooting for him. Unless your name is Judge Dredd (who actually IS Judge, Jury and Executioner) then the 'hero' usually comes off as a goddamn serial killer. Which is cool if you're the Punisher since that's his deal but is kinda f*cked if a normal hero is beating someone to death for robbing a bank.

 

[Casual Shinji]

And yes, I agree with the post above me that superheroes are essentially police officers... so why can't the government lock the super villains away for life of just execute them? Superhero comics are already unrealistic...

To take Batman as an example... Most of the villains there are criminally insane, like the Joker and Two-Face, which means they escape the death penalty.

 

[kris40k]

In Injustice, Superman says that superheroes aren't gods and they don't have the right to determine who lives and dies, and Shazam says that there have to be limits on what superpowered beings can do.

Spoiler: And in Under the Red Hood

Jason Todd says, "Him...just him."

I myself believe that there are some people that deserve to die, and in Under the Red Hood, I have to say I was pretty damn torn by both arguments.

The Punisher is an interesting character because in part of his war on crime is so severe. He does not have your standard hero outlook at things, but has his own problems as well.[footnote]He has killed people that could easily be defended as not deserving death. He's a little too liberal with his use of lethal force.[/footnote] Having multitudes of characters are a good thing, and not one outlook or approach is always the right one. Superman with the Punisher's outlook on things would be a monster. Look at the original Supreme from Image comics.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

And yes, I agree with the post above me that superheroes are essentially police officers... so why can't the government lock the super villains away for life of just execute them? Superhero comics are already unrealistic...

Marvel's heroes did try having a special prison in the Negative Zone so they could hold all the villains their indefinitely. It, uhh... yeah. One of the early Guardians of the Galaxy stories showed why that was a terrible idea in hindsight. And Superman had the Phantom Zone projector too so they have tried the whole 'imprison forever' thing. It just... doesn't tend to work that good. Mostly because life imprison in comics means 'trap in another dimension'.

captcha: Check your work, you probably should heroes!

 

[Sarge034]

There's also the simple question of who has the right to kill? Not a vigilante. We developed laws and criminal justice systems for a reason.

I counter with The Punisher.

Spoiler

The Punisher: I leave this as a declaration of intent, so no one will be confused. One: "Si vis pacem, para bellum." Latin. Boot Camp Sergeant made us recite it like a prayer. "Si vis pacem, para bellum - If you want peace, prepare for war."

[cut to later, as Frank prepares his weapons for the final attack on Saint's gang]

The Punisher: Two: Frank Castle is dead. He died with his family. Three: in certain extreme situations, the law is inadequate. In order to shame its inadequacy, it is necessary to act outside the law. To pursue... natural justice. This is not vengeance. Revenge is not a valid motive, it's an emotional response. No, not vengeance. Punishment.

In the end this is an alignment issue. Yes, a DnD alignment issue. Most people are lawful good, they think the law is the end all be all. But what do you do when the law fails? When the law is part of the problem? Enter the chaotic good characters. Batman and The Punisher are both chaotic good. They both work outside the law following their own code in the name of "good", it's just that their moral code is different. Batman refuses to kill and in by doing so the incompetent and corrupt criminal justice system allows the Joker to go about killing more people. The Punisher wouldda shot him in the head and called it a day, thereby saving all of the Joker's future victim's lives. So I ask, is the Joker's life worth more than all the people he IS going to kill? I say it isn't...

But the real reason why Batman doesn't kill is because it's expensive to create new villains every few comics. If you'll notice the pattern, if a superhero kills (for the most part) they cut through nameless mooks and the villain usually gets away or lives somehow. But I will ask this, how many of the nameless mooks that Batman kicks the absolute shit out of die of their injuries? Seriously, he breaks femurs (the bone could sever the femoral artery) and hits the torso very hard (causing internal organ damage and internal hemorrhaging). Just food for thought, as he says...

Spoiler

 

[Fox12]

snip

That's all well and good for a fictional character, but there's a reason vigilante justice and blood feuds died off. They're ineffective. Besides, a single individual doesn't get to decide what constitutes justice. Society does. Otherwise we get a series of civil liberty abuses and lawlessness.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I'm not a fan of the notion, if only because I believe that certain evil individuals should be put down.

Admittedly, it has to do with comic book censorship, and was later justified in-universe as "being better than the villain" and out-of-universe as "keeping them alive so they can reappear again".

And yes, I agree with the post above me that superheroes are essentially police officers... so why can't the government lock the super villains away for life of just execute them? Superhero comics are already unrealistic...

That's pretty much comicbook logic verses real world logic.

By killing the villain via the justice systerm (death penalty) then there will be no more superheroes comics since you can't have a superhero without a supervillain.

 

[spartenX]

To be honest, I think that people were more alright with most marvel heroes killing than they would with anyone else, if only because of the circumstance. Cap was in a war, Iron man was fighting terrorists, black widow and hawkeye are government agents, Hulk is....well a giant green rage monster who is barely in control of himself, and Thor comes from a different world entirely. Plus, they were all fighting an alien invasion. the X-men.....Wolverine I think gets a pass because he has always been more willing to kill, the whole "I'm the best at what I do, and what I do isn't very nice" thing. Plus, alot of the time these guys are put in positions where they don't have much choice but to kill in the movies. Another important detail is that these guys would be more willing to kill even in the comics (although I don know they go back and forthe on whether or cap killed anyone in the war or if the Hulk killed anyone in his rampages). Plus, alot of the time these guys are put in positions where they don't have much choice but to kill in the movies

Now compare that to how people reacted to superman killing Zod. People flipped because that is just not superman. Superman (alongside batman), is pretty much the embodiment of "though shalt not kill" in all other versions, only ever resorting to killing in the most extreme circumstances. Spidey is also the marvel character who more or less embodies that idea (though this does depend on if its a day where the writers say cap did or din't kill in the war).

However, I think people losing their shit over supes killing zod proves that even if you make a movie about a hero who doesn't follow the golden rule, It can still be successful.



However, in looking through the comments here, it astounds me to see people saying that the heroes should be the ones to kill people, instead of just letting them get the death penalty. I've never really gotten why people think its so much better for one man to decide whether someone should live or die, instead of whatever the law says should happen them. It almost seems like people just want to take the responsibility of taking the life o a criminal that deserves to die from the system that we use, and give it to someone who is outside the system simply because we don't like how the system works.

a super hero can save the world, but they can't fix it. that is ultimately left up to society, which seems ready to give that responsibility to a super hero at every opportunity.

Batman sees a criminal brutally murder a bunch of innocents, literally sees with his own eyes what that person has done.

Random civilians chosen to be a jury sit in a courtroom and are told of the facts second hand by some lawyers.

Why are they a better choice to decide the mans fate than Batman is?

Society can fix the world, but how many times does it fail? How many times has the Joker been sent to an Asylum or been given a prison sentence only to be put back into the world and continue to be responsible for the death of how many innocents?

so if I see a person kill a man, that gives me the right to then kill them?

even a police officer can't do that, unless he thinks that person is immediately about to try and kill someone else, so what gives batman that right?

as for why a jury is the better judge, the same reason that you don't have witnesses act a jury in a trial, the people judging whether someone has committed a crime and how they should be punished for it must be impartial and objective so that they aren't biased about their decision.

as for the joker, that really does more have to do with comic book writing necessitating that he stay alive, no matter how much logic dictates that the system would have said "fuck it" and given him the death penalty by this point.

Why shouldn't it?

If the person committed the one murder and gave up they're not allowed to shoot. If they continue their spree and attempt to kill others they can.

I'm having some trouble understanding your objection here. it seems like your saying if that person is about to kill someone else then its alright to kill them, which is something I can agree with assuming there is no other way to stop them. however, it almost seems like you're suggesting that if someone has killed a man and is walking away to go commit another murder, whether it will take 10 minutes or a few hours for them to do so, then it is alright to kill them. In which case I really can't agree unless there is no other way to stop them.

Would you not take the life of someone who is about to murder someone else?

well that depends on a number of circumstances, for example is there a way to stop them without anyone getting killed? it also depends on whether I could actually bring myself to do so. this isn't exactly CoD where your just shooting some video game avatar, this is actually killing a man, and I honestly have no idea if I could bring myself to actually commit the act no matter how much I want the person dead.

 

[bjj hero]

I've always wondered why no one really ever had problems with this, despite it being so important in the comics. When someone starts dropping bodies in the comics, you know shit is going down. In the movies, it happens every 5 minutes. It's funny, Batman and Spider-man were supposed to be all dark and gritty, yet their heroes stuck to the golden rule. In the much more lighthearted, even comedic, Marvel movies, our favorite crime fighters are ending some poor goon's sad little life like they would a fly. Some happen in pretty horrible ways, Cap threw a Nazi out of a fucking plane.

In conclusion, why do you think these movies were so successful despite ignoring one of the most important qualities of heroics?

You can understand the motivation to kill in these situations. It is like being a soldier. You do not just mow people down at will but when someone is attacking you/shooting at you etc. with the very real intention to end your life and those of others then you shoot/fight back.

In the Ironman clip above the tank is arriving to destroy Iron man so he blew it up, probably killing the crew. This is the sort of thing that would be done by the military or law inforcement. When there is a threat to life you are empowered to act. It "feels" true to life so it passes with audiences.

In an execution of a defeated opponent I imagine the reception would be worse. It is a different role, executioner is less palatable than combatant.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Because the Marvel movies have never touched on the issue, save perhaps Cap saying he didn't want to kill anyone in the first movie (yet he was quite trigger happy in that montage later in the movie). They just leave the mook deaths out. Just today I saw Age of Ultron, and the bodycount in the opening scene alone numbered at least in the dozens, what with Hawkeye blowing up emplacements and Hulk charging into groups of people. Yeah, the bad guys just get minor bruises after effectively getting rammed by a tank. If you actually started looking into how many people die offscreen in the Marvel movies, you'd have a death toll of thousands. They just never show it.

Spoiler: Minor spoiler from Age of Ultron in regards to the topic

I mean do you really think there were no casualties as a result of Hulk rampaging in that unnamed city? He looked to be quite happy wrecking shit, throwing cars and all that. It ends on an entire under construction skyscraper collapsing, for fuck's sake. Just because we don't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Or how about those helicarriers falling from the sky in Winter Soldier? Yeah, everyone got out on time for sure and the umpteen tons of concrete and steel raining from the sky completely evaded any civilians. Or the amount of buildings collapsing during the climax of The Avengers?

 

[Flammablezeus]

Wait, what? Batman's killed people in live action movies. Both in the 80s/90s ones and the more recent ones. I'll admit to not having seen all of the animated movies with him though if you're talking about those. In fact, his kills were much more preventable than the Superman one you're referring to (the ones in the older movies were definitely a bit more over-the-top.)

While Batman tries to avoid killing, he's definitely capable and willing to do it. His main rule is to avoid using guns (although again, I've read at least one comic where he was willing to break that rule to kill somebody with a particularly powerful gun, because it was pretty much the only way to deal with the threat.)

Not all super heroes are the same anyway. They're people, they're fallible. Then you have people like Wonder Woman and Aquaman who are both warriors. Hal Jordan was in the air force. These aren't careers you consider if you're completely unwilling to kill when necessary.

 

[Auberon]

Did Marvel ever enforce that "absolutely no killing, regardless of any reasoning behind" party line like DC?

 

[RedDeadFred]

I guess with the case of a lot of the DC heroes, it's that they are operating outside the law (I think... I don't read the comics so feel free to correct me). Killing would be extremely illegal with them and morally suspect since they're not allowing the criminal their rights to a trial.

The Avengers are at least operating within the government and are probably legally allowed to kill.

I guess it also sort of comes down to how the two movie universes portray killing. DC takes the much darker tone of having it be an extremely serious thing that shouldn't just be brushed off. Marvel, being more light hearted, takes it as a necessity and even uses it to comedic effect.

Neither are wrong as far as making an enjoyable movie goes.

 

[Evonisia]

Because those movies haven't mentioned it, it's as simple as that. These versions of the characters don't have that rule.

The infamous scene from Man of Steel is so awkward because they crowbarred it in on account of a fear of backlash, but the film itself never brings up the "Superman doesn't kill" thing. Hell his sociopathic, terrible father encourages him to let people die and to disregard human life.