Would you kill the Joker?

[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.

 

[lumenadducere]

Obviously I can't say for sure, but I think I would. The thing is, every single person that he goes on to kill after that point, I could have prevented. All the innocents dead, all the billions in property damage, all the criminals funded, all the victims who suffer by losing loved ones or who are driven insane by his various gasses...any time that an incident happens involving the Joker from that point on, I'll know that I could have prevented with one single pull of the trigger.

Would I be innocent in those crimes and deaths if I didn't take the chance to stop him then and there? Legally, yes, but I don't think I'd ever feel okay if I kept seeing more of the Joker's sprees on the news. And I likely wouldn't be able to forgive myself for it.

 

[O maestre]

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.

 

[Dango]

Why would I? His jokes aren't that bad.

On a serious note, still no.

 

[Dangit2019]

Yes. The only reason Batman doesn't do it is because DC needs a reason to keep him alive for further comics.

 

[jurnag12]

This is a guy who has gleefully killed enough people to populate a small city in horrific ways who shows absolutely no remorse or even the tiniest signs of even trying to repent.

I'll fucking smile as I pull the trigger.

 

[twohundredpercent]

If I killed him he'd probably just turn out to be a Jokerbot, duh. lol don't you follow comic book logic scrubs?

 

[Fidelias]

Honestly, I don't really know.

On the one hand, I'm not a violent person. It's actually something I've grown to like about myself, the fact that I'd rather turn the other cheek and try to empathise with someone rather than immidiately start to attack them back.

However, the Joker is a homicidal maniac. Complete scum. And I would have absolutely no moral objections to shooting him right there. In my mind, a proven murderer deserves no mercy. The chance for him to fall back on his ways and commit more murders far outweighs the chance at redemption.

So in the end it really comes down to what I'd be willing to sacrifice in the situation. Would I be willing to give up what I believe to be an important part of myself to (most likely) save future lives? Would it actually be selfish of me NOT to kill the Joker?

Like I said, I don't know.
I don't think I'd kill him unless I was afraid that he might attack me or my family. I'd probably call the police and keep my gun trained on the Joker until I was certain that I was safe.
I kind of have an idea about the kind of person I am right now, and killing someone in cold blood (no matter how evil) would change how I view myself drastically.

 

[frizzlebyte]

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.

Granted, but that melt-down level of chaos can go both ways. If the people of Gotham are what I suspect, and that is scared sheep, they might just roll over and die, and let the criminals take over completely, rather than fixing the problem themselves. I agree that Batman is a band-aid that keeps the city from healing itself, but letting the Joker live on as some sort of test is totally unfair to the innocent people of Gotham, many of whom are in that city by no fault of their own.

Though you could argue that maybe the Batman needs to be killed, too, while the super-criminals are thrown into disarray by the Joker's death. Then the citizens would have to pull themselves up or die.

 

[Norithics]

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.

That's a fair question. So in order to help you understand my stance, allow me to restate the thread starter's question in relation to what's being asked:

I, am a slightly overweight original fiction author and professional illustrator. I have no combat skills, no background in criminal justice, and suffer from a functioned but bothersome paranoid schizophrenia. Yet at this point in time, the task of deciding who must live or die in order to better the peace among men has fallen... to me.

The system has clearly failed already. If it's up to me to end the life of a charismatic lunatic, then what am I inside of society for? It seems to me like I would be no worse out among the forest, where there are no laws to begin with. If they can't help this man, then either he is beyond help or the system is lacking. If they can't stop criminals from breaking him out, then I live in an anarchistic hellscape already. Whether or not I decide to kill this man, the entire city framing him is going to continue to be a stewing pot of unbelievable suffering. If I get rid of him, there will assuredly be another waiting to fill the void and people will perish. If I do nothing, he will retain his place and people will perish. What about the next time the system fails? Will I be called upon to be the ill-informed executioner again?? This seems unsustainable.

So, no. Essentially you've stated the opposite of what I believe. I think that a system is the only real way to rehabilitate or control criminals and the mentally ill. The larger systems available have to be the answer, because once it falls down to people like me, it's too late. It's broken. There's no point.

Granted, but that melt-down level of chaos can go both ways. If the people of Gotham are what I suspect, and that is scared sheep, they might just roll over and die, and let the criminals take over completely, rather than fixing the problem themselves. I agree that Batman is a band-aid that keeps the city from healing itself, but letting the Joker live on as some sort of test is totally unfair to the innocent people of Gotham, many of whom are in that city by no fault of their own.

Though you could argue that maybe the Batman needs to be killed, too, while the super-criminals are thrown into disarray by the Joker's death. Then the citizens would have to pull themselves up or die.

Delicious foods for thought. Worth mulling over.

 

[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?

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.

Well that depends on what you mean by cold blooded murder. Do you mean that it was done without a reason, or without emotion, or in a premeditated way? Because the only one of those that really applies is the premeditated thing.

Cold blooded murder as in killing an unarmed person who has no means to defend themselves.

 

[kypsilon]

I would shoot Joker in the spine and leave him wheelchair bound for the rest of his life. I don't have to kill him. If I could pop him one in the skull so that he was almost a complete vegetable on life support for the rest of his days that would be even better, but harder to achieve than a scenario that leaves him unable to walk ever again.

 

[BNguyen]

It would be too easy to just rid him of life - the better choice would be to cure him of his psychosis but keep him in a maximum security state - he may represent the failures of Gotham but he could also become a symbol of Gotham's success

 

[Nurb]

[/quote]

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.

The question was, if we were in the comic book world, would we shoot the joker? Well in that world, it wouldn't happen because that world needs the joker to exist. You could try, but Harley suddenly bonks you with a cartoonish mallet and the Joker chuckles before he plays chicken with you strapped to the hood of his car.

If we had powers or were important in that world, then maybe, but unimportant people always lose there.