Would you kill the Joker?

[Canadamus Prime]

No. Why? Because if I did I'd be no better than him.

I never knew killing one mass murdering psychopath who will very likely end up killing more people in the future equated to killing dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of people because it's funny.

Cold blooded murder is cold blooded murder whether it be one or one hundred thousand.

The impact is different, each one of those thousand people were individuals not just numbers, each on of them had thoughts and aspiration for the future, had loved ones had community ties, someone like Stalin would say that the death of one is the same as the death of a thousand. By your logic serial killers should only be charged with with one count of murder, actually by your reasoning there would be no such thing as serial killers. When it comes to people numbers do count, at least they do to me.

Well ok yeah, the impact is different. However you're still lowering yourself to his level, aren't you?

First we have to accept that morality is nor objective, by that extension context is everything... kind of the reason we have court cases to determine degrees of sentencing and juries, because context is important. The Jokers background is at best political at worst for his own enjoyment. I would kill him to not only to protect myself, but at the massive scale of his killings to protect my family, and my fellow man and his family. I am not debasing myself at all, in accordance to my own personal morality, whether it is in line with judicial morality... well that is for a jury to decide

If you say so. Legal "justice" is a load of convoluted bullshit.

Well ok yeah, the impact is different. However you're still lowering yourself to his level, aren't you?

So? What's more important, maintaining your position on your higher level or preventing all the suffering he'll go on to cause?

And that's even if you were actually going to his level, which would be the level of murdering people because it's fun. You'd be lowering yourself to the level of someone who kills someone to protect the people they would inevitably go on to hurt and kill; it's much higher up on the morality ladder.

Maybe it is, but I cannot kill someone in cold blood while they lie defenceless on the floor, even if it is the Joker. Now if he was up and awake an we were in some sort of life or death struggle then maybe I'd kill him.

Okay, if such a situation ever comes up, make sure to give the gun to someone who puts the lives and safety of dozens, if not hundreds, of other people over their desire to not do anything that goes against their morals.

Hey there's no need to attack me!!

I don't think he was attacking you, merely stating that if you are unwilling to take action you should step aside and let someone else make a crucial decision, you yourself stated that you wouldn't be able to do it unless very specific circumstances were present. Though you don't seem to comfortable with it since you regard his comment as an attack.

Ok maybe it was a knee jerk reaction to assume it was an attack.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

So we're in a world of super villians and super heroes and i get the possibility to take out a super-villian?

Deal. We're talking about a world were single individuals have the power to change the world, so why not put a stop to someone whos only interested in making people suffer?

 

[senordesol]

Without a moment's hesitation or consideration: I would blast him, chop him to little bits and burn them!

It's the bleeding Joker! His entire existence is to cause suffering to his fellow man. To do anything less to him, if given the chance, is to be COMPLICIT with that goal. I'd compare him to a rabid dog, but even that metaphor's fucked...a rabid dog doesn't know what it's doing.

There is no moral conundrum here: If you don't take this opportunity -right here, right now- he WILL kill again; maybe you, maybe someone you care about, maybe a hundred people you've never met -but a hundred people all the same- there is no reason to hesitate.

For those saying that killing him make you 'like' him: No. Just no. If you're killing for fun -for shits and giggles- THEN you're like him. If you're offing him because its the only way to be sure this criminal mastermind will never hurt anyone else, then you're as unlike him as can be.

 

[Angie7F]

If I kill the Joker, will I be able to replace Batman and become a new super hero?
If not, then i wouldnt bother.

With great power comes great responsibility.
I would leave it up to batman so I dont have to deal with the media frenzy that may follow later.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

I wouldn't even hesitate

The only hard thing about that choice is keeping it a secret from everyone that I did what the Bat couldn't

I think you mean "what the Bat wouldn't do". Because lets be honest. If Bats didn't have that whole no killing rule he'd hunt down all his enemies in one night.

Nope.
However I would probably tie him up, throw him in the trunk of a car and drive to Texas, where I'd turn him over
to the first law enforcement officer I saw. And let *them* kill him.

Why hasn't Batman ever thought of that?!
[sub](Answer: "Because DC likes making money on Batman comics.")[/sub]

 

[kasperbbs]

I would shoot him in the face, at least twice to be sure. According to this scenario i'm a vigilante who wants to protect the people of his city and letting him go would just result in the same thing that has happened many many times already and more people would end up dead because of it, so ofcourse i would do it.

After reading most of the responses here i realized that i'm probably a terrible person, oh well.

 

[SonofaJohannes]

Probably not, I don't think I have it in me to kill someone. Maybe if he attacked me and I had no other option, but I wouldn't be able to just pick up a gun and shoot him just like that.

 

[O maestre]

Spoiler: snip

No. Why? Because if I did I'd be no better than him.

I never knew killing one mass murdering psychopath who will very likely end up killing more people in the future equated to killing dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of people because it's funny.

Cold blooded murder is cold blooded murder whether it be one or one hundred thousand.

The impact is different, each one of those thousand people were individuals not just numbers, each on of them had thoughts and aspiration for the future, had loved ones had community ties, someone like Stalin would say that the death of one is the same as the death of a thousand. By your logic serial killers should only be charged with with one count of murder, actually by your reasoning there would be no such thing as serial killers. When it comes to people numbers do count, at least they do to me.

Well ok yeah, the impact is different. However you're still lowering yourself to his level, aren't you?

First we have to accept that morality is nor objective, by that extension context is everything... kind of the reason we have court cases to determine degrees of sentencing and juries, because context is important. The Jokers background is at best political at worst for his own enjoyment. I would kill him to not only to protect myself, but at the massive scale of his killings to protect my family, and my fellow man and his family. I am not debasing myself at all, in accordance to my own personal morality, whether it is in line with judicial morality... well that is for a jury to decide

If you say so. Legal "justice" is a load of convoluted bullshit.

It is, but it unfortunately has to be. A text book example of how murder can't be black and white is self defence, while killing is killing, very few people would think it was just to give the same sentence to a man who defended himself against an assailant and a man who killed for cruelties sake or monetary gain. Justice is a concept of moral righteousness, and we all have personal moralities and often our laws are shaped based on what is considered to be an approximate consensus of those moralities and on the basis of equal treatment through civil rights, at least that is the ideal of democratic societies. Therefore the law can become convoluted and sometimes unrelatable.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Yep, maybe shoot him in the knee caps and let him bleed out. Come on, if you know the joker has killed thousands, and you know what he looks like. Not like he hides who and what he is. So yeah, he would be dead. I would make sure of it. Also as its comics, its best to burn the body, take the ashes and scatter them over several different continents and all keep a bit for yourself to lock away in a safe place just in case all the ashes could be found and combined and make joker reborn.

 

[Clowndoe]

Yep, definitely. It's not a revenge thing or for fun, I don't support the death penalty, and punishment should be a means of correcting someone, not revenge. But if it's the only way to save the thousands of people he'd otherwise be after, then it's totally worth it.

 

[DaWaffledude]

Without a doubt. Someone like him wouldn't even register as human to me.

 

[lunavixen]

I would have few qualms about it i think, I mean, after all the people he has killed, families he has ruined and sheer amounts of destruction he has wrought on Gotham City, and seeing as the police and Batman won't kill him, I think I could. He's one of those prisoners that can't (or is not willing) to be rehabilitated. I mean, what Batman and Comissioner Gordon are trying (to rehabilitate him and show him that the law works) is a noble idea, but I think he's too far gone.

 

[TwiZtah]

Yes, yes I would. None of that fucking pansying around that Batman does. One clean shot through the skull would save thousands of people their lives, just think if Batman would have done that 70 years ago.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

You bet your ass I would. It's so stupid, this whole "Ohh nooo if we kill him, then we'll lose that part that separates us from him! We'll be no better than him, that's just what he would want!" Fuck's sake, assholes, you're worried more about your pride in not letting him "win" than actual lives? At that point I'd say you're already a monster -- a monster that allows the constant deaths of thousands of people for the sake of your own selfish needs.

So yeah, fine, the Joker wins. Big whoop. Kill the fucking clown already.

This is why I prefer the less serious Batman iterations, because this stupid "moral dilemma" is a complete non-issue.

 

[HellbirdIV]

What if you don't kill him, but break him? Destroy his arms, legs and mouth and make him dependent on regular medical treatment. It'd be incredibly cruel, sure, but he'd live and he'd be almost entirely neutralized.

This. I would assume the gun has more than one bullet? If I shoot his spine in two separate spots, blow out his knees and wrists and maybe shatter his pelvis, break his jaw and his elbows.

If that's not an option at all, then yes, I would be morally obligated to kill him. The Joker clearly will not remain in prison if his reputation is to be believed, and he's a mass-murderer intent as hell to keep on murdering for the rest of his life.

There is no option for rehabilitation, redemption or lifetime hard labour for the state that could possibly keep him from hurting and killing more people in the future.

The Clown's gotta go.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Well ok yeah, the impact is different. However you're still lowering yourself to his level, aren't you?

So? What's more important, maintaining your position on your higher level or preventing all the suffering he'll go on to cause?

And that's even if you were actually going to his level, which would be the level of murdering people because it's fun. You'd be lowering yourself to the level of someone who kills someone to protect the people they would inevitably go on to hurt and kill; it's much higher up on the morality ladder.

Maybe it is, but I cannot kill someone in cold blood while they lie defenceless on the floor, even if it is the Joker. Now if he was up and awake an we were in some sort of life or death struggle then maybe I'd kill him.

Okay, if such a situation ever comes up, make sure to give the gun to someone who puts the lives and safety of dozens, if not hundreds, of other people over their desire to not do anything that goes against their morals.

Hey there's no need to attack me!!

I don't think he was attacking you, merely stating that if you are unwilling to take action you should step aside and let someone else make a crucial decision, you yourself stated that you wouldn't be able to do it unless very specific circumstances were present. Though you don't seem to comfortable with it since you regard his comment as an attack.

Ok maybe it was a knee jerk reaction to assume it was an attack.

Well you could probably consider it an attack. I was basically calling you someone who's too selfish to put other people's lives over your desire to feel good in the knowledge that you didn't go against your morals for a few seconds, because that's what you kinda are. So you should give the gun to someone who either doesn't have a moral issue with it, or who is willing to set their morals aside for two seconds for the sake of others.

Yeah, and I take offence to that remark.
Besides, I feel death would be too good for him.

 

[happyninja42]

The real question is "Will you take the law into your own hands?"

That question, I dunno. In a purely theoretical discussion, I would like to say yes. This subject is one that I personally find frustrating about the Batman universe. Corrupt legal system or not, how many bodies does one person have to pile up before the death penalty is considered appropriate? Crazy or not, doesn't matter to me. At some point, (personally when someone has wracked up a body count in the double digits or more), their sanity shouldn't be an issue. They are a clear and present danger to society, and given the revolving door system of the Mental Health Industry (not counting breaking out in comic book universe), I think putting them down is the overall better choice. The likelihood of them getting out is ridiculously high in a comic universe, and they will, as you say, kill again and again. At what point do you say "the value of this one crazy murderer's life is greater than the mountain of bodies he has made" ? When does that scale tip the other way?

I don't know, personally, I would like to think I'd kill him. Assuming all the variables you mentioned:

1. Well known, documented history of mass murder
2. Inability of justice system to properly protect the public by keeping him locked away.
3. Certainty that he will continue to kill again. (Very likely including myself if he gets out of this Perfect Situation)


I would say yes, I would kill him.

I do find it funny though, that the regular police force can't seem to shoot him. I mean either they are Stormtrooper accurate, or prohibited from using lethal force. If they are prohibited from using lethal force, then why do they have guns?

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Batman doesn't kill not because he's a pussy. He just knows his limitations. He's self aware enough to know that he's two steps away from being one of the real crack pots. One justifiable murder with joker could easily turn into "Eh, I've killed guys I found to be bad before, what's one more?"

Yes, the Joker's evil. Yes, he doesn't deserve to breathe the same air as us or especially of those families he has robbed of loved ones... But what's the difference between killing many because you have an uncontrollable insane urge to... and killing many those who go against your moral code (which just happens to be aligned somewhat similarly to the legal system)? When is it senseless murder, and when is it murder that you can happen to just explain away saying "well, he was a criminal so it's ok!"?

Also, this isn't defense of batman. I dislike him as a character. But I can understand why he does what he does.

What if you don't kill him, but break him? Destroy his arms, legs and mouth and make him dependent on regular medical treatment. It'd be incredibly cruel, sure, but he'd live and he'd be almost entirely neutralized.

DC is a universe of science and magic and mutagens.

Given that Joker is often quoted as a chemical genius, you'd probably give rise to cyber joker, or Bang Baby Joker.

 

[GamerAddict7796]

Without any hesitation.

That man has killed thousands over a number of years and yet Batman still thinks he cspan be rehabilitated? No thanks.

Even morally there's nothing to worry about. If his next victim was one of your family, you'd soon want retribution so you'll be doing many, many people a favour.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

No. I'd get him put into a prison that isn't in Gotham, though. A bit harder to break out.