Would you kill the Joker?

[DementedSheep]

Should I be morally conflicted about this? I've obviously never killed anyone so maybe in a real situation I wouldn?t be able to do it but I?m pretty sure I?d kill him, yeah.

 

[Nazulu]

Yeah, maybe. I don't want to even hold a gun, but maybe I will be different when I'm in the same building with a super villain. He's as fucked up as Hitler. I'd say he is worse if he can be so motivational and resourceful without any help.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

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

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Someone already pretty much had this same question presented to him in Vietnam.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18593_6-classics-despised-by-people-who-created-them_p2.html

Read #2.

At the time the picture was taken, Loan was Chief of Police and the guy getting shot was the leader of a Viet Cong assassination squad tasked with murdering South Vietnamese police officers, and if those officers couldn't be found, their families would be killed instead.

The man Loan shot had been caught near a ditch containing 34 murdered men, women and children, among them were the wife and six children of one of Loan's closest friends (the six murdered kids were also Loan's godchildren).

As you can see, he responded to this with a bullet to the head of the murderer. I agree with this decision and Cracked did a good job of summarizing why.

Sometimes, acts that would otherwise be seen as criminal are justifiable in a paranoid surrounding such as those present in a time of civil unrest.

 

[Mad World]

No - I couldn't. We (human beings) don't have the right to decide who dies. Unless it is actually self-defence, I don't think that I would be justified in killing someone else.

 

[Jolly Co-operator]

Yep, without a doubt, I'd kill him. I believe in the sanctity of human life, and I believe that it is precious and should be preserved when possible. However, I also have a pragmatic side to myself, and in this case, the pragmatist wins the internal argument. It's been made clear that he can't be cured, can't be contained, and can't be made to reform. In the interest of saving thousands of other lives, then yes, I'll shoot him.

 

[silver wolf009]

This is an issue?

Once in head to be sure. Once in the lap for vindictiveness. The rest in everything else to be absolutely sure.

 

[lord canti]

I'd feel a lot worse letting someone go who I know will kill hundreds of people and knowing I had a chance to stop it, than just killing a single being. So yes if I had a guarantee shot at him I would do it.

 

[Kajin]

Yes I would kill the Joker. He's just gonna come back next episode anyway.

 

[Hawk eye1466]

Nah he's way to fun to kill then who'd keep gotham on it's toes?

 

[Norithics]

I'm tempted to agree with this. However, I wonder if the failure of Gotham's government to pass a symbolic test should be allowed to cause that much suffering for the citizens who have done nothing to truly deserve such endless, mindless suffering, other than perhaps not throwing their laughably ineffectual government into the sewer.

If you think about it a little further, Batman may actually be the one thing preventing the system from fixing itself. Things never get too bad, because he's always there. When Joker's got something that's just absolutely going to throw Gotham into chaos, when Two-Face has gotten too big to stop, when anything gets to be too much, Batman appears and stops it. So Gotham never has to face the consequences of the things that might just throw them over the edge and cause real, momentous change. As a result, they never do, and the festering stew keeps on boiling.

 

[Elamdri]

Yes. Every time. Without hesitation. Batman's inability to kill the Joker borders on reckless irresponsibility at this point.

 

[The Lugz]

I don't think I would. Because to me, the Joker has always represented the failure of Gotham, not the failure of Batman. He's clearly insane, and clearly dangerous, but he's just a guy. He doesn't shoot lasers from his biceps or fart the Power Cosmic, he's a skinny dude in facepaint.

So, in a way to me, he's a test. If Gotham can deal with the Joker, then they deserve the safety that comes from it. If they can't, then it's pretty clear that he's just emblematic of a larger problem that Gotham can't deal with and needs to.

this is a nice idea, and i agree if i were batman i wouldn't kill joker.

but i'm wondering if you're forgetting a few key lore points of the joker, also crime is some stupid level that's unpoliceable in gotham which also hamstrings the cops

joker is a badass. and that isn't paint.
( well.. meh, let's not get into that.. revisionism will consume the entire post )

now the problem here is the representation of joker varies a lot from comics and throughout the films but in all of them the average citizen or cop is automatically weaker than the joker at everything despite his sometimes scrawny appearance he is a master of trickery in combat and will pull crazy weapons or impossible moves on you.

( or just cherry bombs and a gat. )

bare in mind, batman is also 'just a guy' in a batsuit that happens to be a billionaire bodybuilder with serious moves and gadgets and well, batman > everything right?

joker is batman through the looking glass of insanity and chaos, and is undoubtedly weaker but plays on batman's morals to get away with things so the question is, would you mess with an insane criminal version of batman?

I still call badass, or at the VERY least armed and psychopathic!

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

Anyone who wouldn't kill the joker is ridiculous, batman included (which has been admitted by the man himself)

Justice and all that jazz, but I'd take the jailtime

 

[O maestre]

I don't think I would. Because to me, the Joker has always represented the failure of Gotham, not the failure of Batman. He's clearly insane, and clearly dangerous, but he's just a guy. He doesn't shoot lasers from his biceps or fart the Power Cosmic, he's a skinny dude in facepaint.

So, in a way to me, he's a test. If Gotham can deal with the Joker, then they deserve the safety that comes from it. If they can't, then it's pretty clear that he's just emblematic of a larger problem that Gotham can't deal with and needs to.

Seriously? lets imagine you as a citizen of Gotham are in that situation, you wouldn't take the shot because the man terrorising your already crime infested city, of which most criminals are insane loonies, because you see it as a test.... good thing you are not on some anti-terrorist task force

OT: as a normal citizen, although I don't think anyone still living in Gotham can be categorized as normal, I would most definitely take the shot

BTW, I am pro capital punishment, it would be interesting if the OP included this in hist question, see how far peoples replies match their real life stances

An interesting moral dilemma for you all: If given the opportunity, would you kill the Joker?

Here's the scene: You and the Joker are in an abandoned building together. Batman, the rest of the Bat-family, and the Gotham police force are all on the other side of town dealing with one of the Joker's schemes. You're 100% certain of this fact. No one is aware of where you two are, and no one is coming any time soon.

The Joker has no goons, no Harley, no weapons, no traps, and is unconscious on the ground. You have a gun. A 100% real, non-trick, kill-you gun.

The Joker hasn't actually DONE anything to you. He hasn't killed anyone you know or care about. But, his reputation remains. He's killed thousands, he's going to continue killing in the future, and his current scheme is probably killing people as you're standing there.

You could put a bullet in his head, and no-one would ever know... or probably care. And even in the HIGHLY unlikely event that someone figures out it was you (again, almost impossible to do), you could simply claim self-defense, and that'd be enough for basically everyone. Do you take this one, single opportunity to stop him here and now, and possibly save thousands of lives?

Remember, this is the Gotham justice system we're talking about here. Even if you simply turned him in, he'd just get thrown in Arkham again, and escape again, and nothing would change.

Despite all this... I don't think I could do it. I just don't think I have it in me for cold-blooded murder like that.

 

[Norithics]

good thing you are not on some anti-terrorist task force

I agree, my annoyingly constant critical thinking of wider social implications would make me a terrible cog.

also crime is some stupid level that's unpoliceable in gotham which also hamstrings the cops

Yeah, but it's implied that the supercrime is still vastly outnumbered by the actual crime, and the thing about actual crime is that it doesn't just happen for no reason. Desperation is the key ingredient for it, so if Gotham is that overrun by criminals, it's because the people are that desperate... which still doesn't acquit the place very well.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I'd probably end up dead by the end of the week from retalliation from Harley/other criminals, or at the least have the crap kicked/scared out of my by the bat family, or their allies if I did do it. Same could be said for anyone else that did it.
Can't say I'd mind some roughing up from Huntress. *Cough*

Or a Kevin Conroy voiced Batman.

Going to prison for Joker's death would be a death sentence, though. Even if they don't hate you for killing joker, they can make an easy name for themselves by killing the guy/gal that killed Joker.

And come on, like Batman wouldn't figure it out? He could probably tell you everything you did that day up to the crime. If he couldn't the league could if they could get involved. I doubt it'd be possible to get away with it. I'm not sure how many times he fails to solve such crimes.

But it's been cannon that Batman could tear down the pillars of crime. He doesn't. Know why? Balance. He keeps them infighting so they can't amass power. He's gone as far as to dictate who gets what turf in my experience. Further the harder he pushes, the harder crime pushes back. Batman seems to control crime more than get rid of it, as if anyone could erase crime forever.

With that in mind, who will fill the void Joker's death would leave? Black Mask, who's a massive psycho himself? Harley, despite all appearances, could potentially fill Joker's shoes taking control of Joker's gang.

And what sort of damage would be done in the fight for Joker's turf?

Batman's a big picture kind of guy, and I respect the hell out of that.

Joker's been assumed dead a lot in his life, but those reports turn out to be greatly exaggerated. Even if you shot Joker in the skull, and even unloaded into his skull, he'll prolly pop up later anyhow... with a bone to pick with you.

Dead, or alive, Joker could do lots of damage. Which would be the greatest amount?

 

[RJ 17]

Normal unknown people can't stand up to villians or heroes in the comic book world, so the hypothetical is impossible I'm afraid XD

That's...kinda what the point of a hypothetical question is...asking something that's extremely unlikely or outright impossible. "What would you do if you had a million dollars?" "What would you do with the gift of flight?" "If you could have anyone in the world as your boyfriend/girlfriend, who would it be?"

All hypothetical questions specifically because of how unlikely/impossible the situation in question is.

 

[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.

 

[O maestre]

good thing you are not on some anti-terrorist task force

I agree, my annoyingly constant critical thinking of wider social implications would make me a terrible cog.

Where you might see yourself as stoic, I see you as indecisive, by your reasoning we shouldn't punish criminals at all, or remove them from society because they are a "test" on our collective civilisation. Threats like a serial killer or a fanatic with a bomb don't get less severe through reasonable dialogue which I can assume would be your solution to threats, if I am wrong than please clarify.

Unless you are an absolute pacifist or anarchist and would not react to any threat, personal or societal I do not understand your stance. Criminal behaviour whether it is brought about in the form of an insane mass murderer or a terrorist or a thief, and what is essentially all of that in this case has to be dealt with.