A psychologist once said in a video about analysing the joker. Joker doesnt need a mental asylum because he is completely aware of what is he doing he knows its wrong but does it just to spite batman. He is not crazy, he is a high functioning psycopath who enjoys tormenting people. As a hero this is really a hard call to make but even i know when lives of innocent are at stake against him i would not hesitate to eliminate the threat.
My 2 cents: Batman doesn't need to become a killer. Gotham needs the death penalty. Or at least better security and management for their prisons and asylums.
Honestly at this point if Bats doesn't think he can pull the metaphorical trigger and put the Joker down then he should at least let a hero with no issues doing so have 5 minutes with tye clown. He's got options
They do. The problem is that Joker just gets sent to Arkham every time by plea of insanity. Which is basically a get out of jail free card for him. But even if you do lock him up tight, what's to stop some super psycho from breaking him out again. Which happens....A LOT
Like, I understand why Gotham doesn't have that and why they keep sending them to a fucking Asylum and not a, Idk, a SUPER HUMAN PRISON???? That's more of the city's fault tbh.
Well let’s be honest the joker still being alive isn’t just on Batman, it’s on the justice system of the comic world, there’s gotta be a point where they should have just given joker the chair
I’d prefer a quick batarang slash across my throat then spending months in a barren cell, my mind going numb as I wait for my death. The smell of burning flesh wafting into my nose as I wait for it to be carried out.
I don’t really blame Batman for Joker as much as the courts. Judge, “Let’s see… He has a body count in the thousands if not more and has maimed a hundred times as many people. I could give him the chair… Nah. Send him back to the place that’s proven it can’t hold him.”
This is the problem with the grimdarkification of Batman. Back in the day (most pre-90s comics and most of Batman TAS afaik) the Joker also didn't kill people, at least not on page/screen, he robbed banks, made super laughing gas (horrifying but not lethal), his pranks could be humiliating, terrifying, nightmarish, but never explicitly lethal, the same rule applied to pretty much all Batman rogues. IIRC this was to do with the CCA, but it still had a good effect on the story. It was a much better approach because in that context Batman's commitment makes sense, he's refusing to kill because the people he's fighting aren't murderers, mass or otherwise, he's sticking to proportionate use of force (mostly, concussing the Riddler for kidnapping his abusive boss is arguable). It made Batman's commitment to trying to redeem these people logical, and they even show it working (until plot resets) with some of them like Harley Quinn, Killer Croc, and Babydoll. The reason the Joker is a good foil for that Batman is because all the other rogues have motives Batman can understand and work to redirect or satisfy in a nonharmful way or traumas he can help heal, while the Joker literally just wants Chaos, even his robberies are just to fund his next Epic Prank, and Batman can't figure out how to handle that because even the World's Greatest Detective (remember when Batman actually did that instead of using "enhanced interrogation"?) couldn't find anything out about the Joker beyond what the Joker showed the world. TLDR if you want your Batman to stick to "I Never Kill" then you have to apply the same rule to his villains.
Honestly batman as a character just weirdly is a little too fantastical to be grounded in a more real world like supes and spiderman can be. I honestly feel like he’s sorta at his best when he exists in a semi-cartoonish world that can balance the darkness with some color, whimsy and wit (batman TAS being an obvious example) Trying to ground a world like that to the real world is a death sentence cause literally all it does is just unearth a billion inconsistencies and unfortunate implications and lead to you taking away and asking the wrong questions about batman, his characters and his story. I hate the “batman beats up the mentally ill instead of using his riches to actually take down the systems that allow these criminals to breed” crowd but it IS true tho. The comics go into a billion other things bruce uses his wealth for to fix crime on a larger scale The reason why most of these things never go anywhere despite being done is because of the Out of universe reason being that gotham sorta has to always be fucked and have villains in order for there to BE batman stories. Kill the joker? He has, matter of fact, everyone has. The problem? You can be revived a billion different ways in the comics, death is more like an inconvenience if anything There are HUMANE permanent ways to rehabilitate the joker without killing or lobotomizing him, the reason we’re never gonna see those is because there’d be no story if that shit was permanent. 💀
Looking at this, the issue doesn't seem to lie with Bats; it's Gotham PD. Batman is a vigilante after all; disabling the threat and having Joker sent to prison - if he's that dangerous, they should put joker down. It's expecting a little too much to blame it all on Batman (even if his excuses do become a little lame - that said, killing once would lead to a slope of it being too easy to just kill your enemies, so it should still absolutely be a last resort). If everyone thinks Batman should kill Joker, why isn't any of that blame hitting Gotham where the clown continues to break out and cause mayhem again. In fact, he's an ordinary human - how are they allowing him to escape so easily so often? Finally, it's clearly just a byproduct of Comicbooks - we can't kill off joker because the it kills off that Batman VS Joker dynamic that the audience enjoys so much. So we keep him alive, come up some moral insight to give enough of a reason to suspend disbelief, and continue the path of escalation to keep it interesting.
I think the Arkham Games touched on this with a scene from Arkham Knight, where Batman (under scarecrows fear gas) pulls a revolver on scarecrow as he is “influenced” by the joker he has trapped in his mind. His biggest fear next to the joker, was killing. He is legitimately afraid of what he’d be like if he pulled the trigger.
Actually, another thing is, Batman even stated in the comics that while he won't be willing to kill anyone himself, he's not entirely against other heroes offing villains themselves.
I do agree that Joker should be killed, but not by Batman. It should be Gotham, and the problem with is Spider-Man. He did stop somebody from killing Carnage, in Carnage USA after they got Kasady from taking over a whole town a father was about to shoot him, Spider-Man stopped him and then the man said I had three kids, now I only have two. The end
@@trevorghalt1881 if Batman can't simply kill one man then he's just as mentally weak and unstable as the criminals he puts away then he has no business being a hero no? Those are the type of choices he has to make dealing with nutjobs who actually don't value humans life it's his life or thousands of others.
People need to understand just how unstable Batman is. The no kill rule for him isn't really for moral reasons. It's so he doesn't go overboard to the point where he kills anyone for any little thing, cause he is in fact insane in his own way.
it don't even matter if they undersand because the reason people hate Batman is because of a bias against his character and his fanbase(rightfully so in most cases). Other superheroes get the benefit of the doubt in situations that go wrong or whatever but Batman is the poster boy of being shut down and criticized because people boiler plate him down into his worse qualities. like it's not even criticism people will outright slander his name because of purposeful character flaws that are meant to further the plot more than anything and make stories interesting.
@@giovannidiaz4633 on a serious note all of Batman's rogue gallery pale in comparison to Joker. They have done evil stuff but there has always almost been a reason but not Joker.
@@kennethcooper1124I will criticize any superhero that has a hard rule of “no killing, no matter the circumstance.” Batman is just the one who is most known for this rule while also having a prime example, the Joker, on why this rule sucks.
This is unrelated but if I remember correctly, in the original ending of "The Killing Joke", while the movie ends, the screen cuts to black while batman and joker were laughing but instead of it ending just like that, batman actually snaps the joker's neck right then and there. they changed it in the final cut because it didn't go well with test audiences I think. imo it would've been WAYY better if they kept it in.
In the comic it was left much more ambiguous, as it wasn't clear if the Joker stopped laughing from having his neck snapped or just stopped laughing in general
Yeah that's not what happened he didn't snap his neck considering the fact that this man is in the next comic book proceeding The Killing Joke he was not killed I don't know why people seriously believe he died when Barbara getting shot is something that shows up in the future Comics including the one right afterwards why do you honest to God think that the Joker died what happened was he almost definitely beat him then he put him in the police car
The question boils down to: can this threat be contained/neutralised without killing them? If yes - bring them to court and they then decide what happens, fair and square. That includes a possible death penalty. If no - then you can make an exception to kill them in fight because they are simply too dangerous to be left alive. Joker can absolutely be contained without killing him. Not giving him the death penalty is on whatever kind of jury is handeling him. Stuff like Carnage or worse can and perhabs should be killed in action because you cannot safely contain them until a trial, let alone keep them in prision.
Difference here, Joker constantly escapes prison! Constantly, cuz he has friends and Harley usually, and every time he gets out, he ensures he can or his pals can break him out of Arkham! And post-60's Joker continues to kill and kill and kill! At this point it's about eqully Batmans fault as Jokers when the clown does mass murder or something.
@@aliahpersonous2893 yes. But that's not on Batman. Batman follows the law and contains him until his sentence by the court. The court are the dumb guys for not saying we should kill him.
A bit more context on that kraken story. They had been psychicly attacking Peter for weeks by messing with the web of fate. Him not putting that spear through kravens chest was a testament to Peter's Will.
Also to be fair tho: The Justice system in DCU refuses to give Joker the death sentence. You can argue that Batman doesn’t have the right to kill anyone since he is a vigilante. But yeah. Some villains do need to be killed.
@@moistfist1054 yes? Is this supposed to be a gotcha question? He’s taking the law into his own hands to do what cops can’t. Why shouldn’t he kill a serial mass murderer?
@@ChromaticEaglehe shouldn't do it as a symbol imo, he works as bruce to reform the systems and batman to enforce justice, someone absolutely should've tho lol
2:40 I think you missed the point of that scene (which is far enough, the move did too). The idea is that Batman’s laughing because he finally snapped. The comic implies he killed the Joker (though of course it doesn’t confirm it, but that was clearly the authors intent).
Honestly with Batman? A big thing about his No kill Rule is because he doesn’t want to kill not because it’s an easy answer, but because it’s an easy escalation for him. He KNOWS the second he gives into the temptation to kill, he’ll just keep killing, and killing and killing until any jaywalker is scared for his life. Because Batman is fully aware that he’s just one bad decision away from becoming more dangerous than Joker
Sounds like Batman have no self control for thinking like that what’s the point of being a superhero for if he think he be triggered happy by killing the joker
What bugs me most about this topic is the characters that tell Batman to kill Joker are actually more concerned with making him kill than actually stopping the Joker themselves (granted he'd inevitably come back from the dead). It's not about doing what needs to be done, it's just wanting to prove Batman wrong and thdm right. There was also that time Batman was going to kill the Joker during the Hush storyline only for Gordon to stop him. Batman's refusal to kill is the main thing that seperate him from being a violent vigilante instead if a hero. Injustice showed Superman being the Joker's greatest victory by turning a hero into a tyrant, and Batman would definitely go down that same path if he broke his no killing rule.
Batman, for all intents and purposes does not have a license to kill. He’d be going too far outside of the law. The Gotham PD is where the majority of the problem lies, they fail to put these villains all the way through death row. They really just protect them from Batman until they break out again.
Yes, but Batman exist in the first place to do what cops couldn't do. He is already outside the law, there are time when murder is necessary but he wouldn't do that. Because he is too crazy to stop after one murder. He took the responsability to do whatever it takes to stop crime and do what's necessary to save people but he can't finish the war he started.
Literally like almost all the gcpd wants Batman to kill the Joker and wouldn't care if he actually did it they'd be happy even like Iron Man is the closest superhero to Batman he doesn't necessarily have a no kill rule but if he's fighting a group of henchman and you happen to die well tough luck you shouldn't have been a villain but you don't see him losing it just because he killed one bad guy
He doesn't have to kill him he just need to make a prison himself for the joker batman just likes to play hero there are far more better ways to bring justice and help the people other than dressing like a furry and wasting money on useless stuff and making kids fight. But in the end it's DC's fault for not letting the character finish its story and actually achieving something meaningful
The thing is Joker is insanely smart and has outsmarted the justice league multiple times. Carnage doesn’t really have a plan he just kills. It’s the difference in threat between a corrupt politician and a mass murderer. The murderer is going to just rampage or at worst plant a bomb. A politician can can destroy nations without even going there. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword.
In most ways you're right, but keep in mind than in every single timeline that I can think of where he killed the Joker (or anyone for that matter), something horrible happens. Anything from mass slaughter to full-on apocalypses. Batman is not well in the head, and he KNOWS it.
@@firestriker3580he literally strapped him to a gargoyle with his grappling hook causing it to break off causing him to fall to his death he even beforehand declares his intentions to kill him
Under normal circumstances, it would be correct to say Batman is a fool for refusing to kill. However, we've *SEEN* what happens when Batman breaks that one rule he set for himself, and it has *always* ended badly.
I think a good example of how Batman operates and potentially would operate IF he started killing people is Edward Elric; specifically from the 2003 version of FMA. Ed essentially holds the same No-Kill Rule as Batman with the will to hurt someone enough like SpiderMan; If they're beaten, they're not a threat. There is the instance with Roy Mustang where they fight and because he tore his glove he assumed "he is beaten" and there for was caught off guard when Roy revealed he had a second one. Showing that he should, at the very least, cover all his bases if that'll be his way of doing things despite being a militant state alchemist. Now comes his fight with Greed. He eventually figures out how to get around Greed's shield and by all means, it's a pretty "by any means necessary" sort of thing where Greed's skin and shit comes off and he has to choose between regeneration or his shield. Greed (in this version) lets Ed kill him, to help prepare him for HOW to deal with the other homunculus (they need to be near their original remains). Ed has a legit mental breakdown that very moment, and by the time it comes for him to kill Sloth, who is essentially his mom, he doesn't seem NEARLY as bothered as you might think he would considering who Sloth is based off of. He's upset but he essentially rationalizes it as "Homunculi are the taboo mistakes of alchemist. You're my mistake. I'm righting that wrong." He treats it like they're just AI that need to be turned off despite KNOWING that Homunculi have feelings and are basically jusy superhumans (Lust wants a life for herself, Wrath [kid] wants a mom, Greed is loyal to those he "claims" and as such takes care of what is his, Gluttony no joke becomes DEPRESSED when Lust dies, Sloth has a compulsive need to pacify Wrath since that's how Trisha was (a phenomenal mom), Pride shows at least some form of care and compassion for his wife and child, and Envy... is Envy). Batman would probably be the same way. It's just as much about perserving as many lives as possible as it is about self-control. Sounds counterintuitive considering how many bodies Joker has tallied, but in the long run? Batman can kill far more criminals than Joker can civilians if he were inclined to do so.
You’re comparing the potential kills of the joker being stopped to the Batman killing more criminals, but you forgot to include the potential goof of stopping criminals from doing future wrong (such as murder).
The issue with ur logic is that in MANY other comics. Spidey displays the desire to NEVER kill. Back in black was peter losing his moral code for one person that DEFINITELY wronged him. But we see that peter wouldnt always react like that in Red goblin when peter spares norman who JUST killed flash.
You forget that literally right before this, Peter was ready to wipe Norman off the census until Flash begged him not to with his dying breaths, asking him not to corrupt the symbiote with his rage.
To me, I've always felt that what makes a true hero is to understand your enemies and talk them out of being a criminal. To truly understand why and how they became the way that they are and to help them make better choices. I recognize that some heroes have done this before, but they end poorly simply because the villain BELIEVES that life cannot get better, BELIEVES they're too far gone to ever be a normal member of society, BLAMES the hero for not being there for them and saving them when they were at their lowest, or the villain actively chooses not to become good.
I like the killing joke ending cause it ends in that way that it’s just too late for any help for Batman to truly do anything that they’re both insane for keeping this game ongoing with each other
I believe that Batman has a much deeper and frightening reason he doesn't kill the Joker than "I'll fall into a pit of murderous rage and kill all my enemies" which is true considering other Bat-media. If so why would he have a problem with Jason or Gordon or Barbara killing the Joker. I think deep in his fractured psyche he wants the Joker alive. He wants his life to be nothing but the same ritual of "Joker escapes Arkham, Batman fights him, the Joker loses, Batman locks him in Arkham". This could also be supported by the times Batman brought him back from the dead. Bruce hates Joker to such a degree he can't live without him.
@@y67moneyy182 I mean that’s basically it they can’t exist without one another when Batman died in a comic joker stop doing crime cuz no one was there to stop him
Naw as he has other problems to deal with both in Gotham or justice league he doesn’t want to become a killer like joe chill who killed his mom and dad or to go around acting like the law handing death penalties out if joker must be killed so do the other killers in Gotham that’s it there’s no he kills once that’s it
@@Channel-23s hmmmm idk about that man. What other villain has committed crimes on su h atrocious levels like the joker. That man has to die. Batman sends him to Archambault just so he can break out and kill again? That's kinda fucked bucko
I think the reason that Batman doesn't kill Joker stems from his personal guilt over turning him into the Joker to begin with. He keeps letting him live because he already broke him and believes that he has a responsibility to right his wrong. If he kills the Joker, he basically admits to himself that not everyone can be redeemed. And if he admits that, then what does he really hope to accomplish by being Batman? Batman is supposed to change Gotham for the better, but if people can't really change then Batman becomes pointless. If Batman is pointless then his parents died for nothing. His whole legacy would become worthless. He can't kill because everyone should have the chance to be saved, even the ones who don't deserve it. It's not his place to make that call.
@@jacobpainter1962 opinionated soldiers kill and are heroes ,Cops kill and are heroes, and Jury could give a death penalty, and even KKK were seen as heroes once. But if the cops, military, and jury choose not to then sometimes you gotta take lives for the better if they just petty small time criminals or were forced into it don't kill them. But if they are can kill and continue without remorse. Why should you not give them the same plus it will be seen as self defense if you are in civilian clothing then it is ok. But if you are some vigilante then do what needs to be and take a life if no one else will stop them from causing to much havoc
@@jacobpainter1962 We had a court system that did it. And they are choosing who lives and dies to have a safer place by getting rid of the worst of the worst.
@@jacobpainter1962 Ok and they are leaving it to the government and theirs aren't doing a Damn thing and with that people will take matters into their own hands
Batman represents justice, Spider-man responsibility. Justice is somebody being tried under court of law, innocent until proven guilty in front of a jury of their peers. Responsibility is doing everything in your power to fulfil that for which you are responsible. Batman is rarely even a peer to those he fights, and he is certainly not the court of law. Therefore if he kills, he fails just as much as if Spider Man were to willingly allow others to be in danger.
"Batman knows he'll continue killing " So you mean to tell me Batman has the restraint and self control to not kill but when he does kill one joker all of a sudden he'll lose his mind. Listen I'm not bothered by his no killing rule cause there's no point in arguing it but then when he says shit like "I remember all the people I killed by keeping joker alive" it's like now we're expected to feel sorry for bats and that i outright refuse. You can't have your cake and eat it too
When you think about it idealistically what Batman saying is the right thing to do but morally and realistically Batman's freaking crazy he just admitted that he knows he's getting people killed by letting him live and he's willing to let it continue because he's too far gone on his moral high horse with his holier than thou stick up his ass to actually admit he's mentally and morally the weakest
@@Red-mx9tx it just means that we're expected to feel sorry about batman nit killing and how it affects jokers victims while also supporting his no killing rule which would be a solutiom to the problem he's creating.
I feel like using Spider-man isn’t a good idea because he actually doesn’t kill. In the Kraven situation he had the symbionts suit which influenced his personality to make him more brutal. Then the Spider-man with the suit is Superior Spider-man who is Peter being controlled by Doc Ock. So Spider-man isn’t willing to kill, it’s only in those circumstances where he wears the symbionts suit and his is mind controlled by doc ock is that he was willing to kill.
The only reason they make stories like "The Batman who laughs" and "Injustice" is to justify him letting joker get out and kill thousands over, and over, and over again.
Exactly. The funny thing is all the stories which batman lets the joker go prove batman wrong. The joker has pretty much given batman the solution to beating him. Stop being batman. Without batman, the joker has no purpose. If Bruce faked batman's death and then created an entirely new superhero identity and change up his methods, he could stop the joker once and for all.
The whole point is that Batman is not just a man. He is literally the symbol of good for Gotham. Joker wants to prove humanity is crazy and twisted just like him by forcing Batman to brake his one rule. To kill out of hatred.
@@vangler6492 its that easy the joker is a mere man, he only gets away with this non sense because batman would have no purpose anymore he’d only need to be bruce
@@justaguywithagoodphoto4801 points that were already addressed by the comments 1.) Killing more makes it way to easy to do it again for less ( also something batman talked about under the red hood) 2.) Gotham pd is the one letting joker escape. Batman is just the one that sends them in, but the asylum just keeps allowing them to get out . 3.) Batman doesnt see himself as a judge, jury, and executioner. 4.) Also him killing would kind if also take the point out of the crusade, since his sole main motivator Is to ensure that more kids may not have to grow up in a position of an orphan . ( sometime even the criminals are parents themselves ) .
1. I do agree killing more can sometimes make it easier to do but honest when your doing something as killing the joker there really shouldn’t BE a struggle with it all 2. If gotham pd doesn’t do why has no one tried to kill him a civilian could do it and it’d be no problem the joker doesn’t even make it that hard for anyone to get him he goes with the flow all they’d have to do is exploit gothams poor excuse of a law and nobody would blame him 3. Thats fair, until literally everyone starts to question why nobody has killed the joker 4. Alright fair enough
Fun fact: in 60+ years of spider-man being in comics, he has only killed once! And it was by accident! Another Fun fact: The punisher once tried to kill joker in a crossever, but batman came to save joker 😂
The truth is that Joker should be dead, but Batman shouldn't have to kill him. Batman cleans the streets, but he isn't the one in charge of the city. Blame the GCP and the government. Or the writers lol
It’s the fact that we know that Batman has the potential to kill gods and people don’t understand the connotations of him going down a slippery slope of killing criminals. The fact is that he understands that Joker isn’t his biggest threat physically but he’s a big threat mentally. Joker is a challenge Batman always has to face because not only does he need someone to keep him in check in a sort of symbiotic relationship, but he’s a vigilante at the end of the day, and he knows that unchecked power would corrupt him if he let it. After all, there isn’t a single person in Gotham that could actually stop him if he really wanted to go all out and he knows that.
If that's the case, then why doesn't anybody put the joker in the phantom zone? Because correct me if I am wrong, he would have virtualky no way of escaping. Also it's not like it could make him any worse to be in there.
@@joshuaagbettor5610 Weeeellll, technically it HAS happened before. In the Lego Batman Movie. And that didn’t really go well. But with NORMAL Joker, IDK.
I see what you’re saying and I agree to some degree but I also know that sometimes it has been shown that when a hero crosses that path and kills their villain everyone turns their backs on them and gives up on them because while maybe no one would’ve cared if all might killed one for all I know and have seen people forshaken Batman for ending joker
It seems that you're aligned with a Utlilitarian approach to Herosim. Which is fine, but I feel like you misunderstood who Batman is. I believe that Heroes should not be executioners due to a belief that anyone can be redeemed. Spider-Man and Batman value human life so much that they were only pushed to certain scenarios due to circumstances. For instance, Batman was willing to kill Darksied because who was a God that could never change. Other than that, Batmans no kill rule isn't foolish, it come from compassion and his radical heroism/trauma. However, Batman won't lose sleep if someone Kills the Joker. Batman is scrict about percicsley because he has to keep himself in check since he is also a damaged person. This conflict is why I find Batman stories so Interesting.
If he's willing to kill Darkside he should be willing to kill a clown just saying just because the joker "wins" in the end don't mean shit nobody would hate Batman if he did so the City would probably Cheer if he did so why wouldn't he and another thing why stop someone else from doing it would he stop a cop from shooting him if he had no choice? Or a random civilian? It makes no sense.
@@jfoster8624 Because if he kills Joker, he won't stop killing. He'll go further. He'll kill anyone who disagrees with him like the cops and his friends. Look at Injustice Superman. That is a good example on why you should not kill.
@@jfoster8624 I also imagine it's because he wouldn't be able to work with Jim Gordon, as Gordon would instantly cut ties with Batman the minute he killed someone like Joker, and as a result he would hunt Batman down
@@star_wars_nerd8.258 but like why would Gordon do that he knows first hand the type of terror joker brings yes he would have no choice but to "hunt" Batman but that doesn't mean they would automatically be enemies I'd never capture Batman I'd always let him get away not like Batman doesn't already do that anyways.
@@jfoster8624 Because Batman wouldn't be working by the book, as he would be playing Judge, Jury and Executioner, rather than bringing the villains in and allowing the courts to decide their fates.
2:20 might be the first tike I heard you miss a point. He meant if he could kill the Joker, why stop at the Joker? He'd go on to killing every villain. If you turn a square into a triangle the angles become triangular. Morals and foundations need to be firm. A slight change is the whole change. Nothing slight about it. You can't go left and right at the same time.
I think someone important to look at is Vash the Stampede, even tho it would be absolutely better for a man of his skill to kill them off, he choses to save everyone even the bad guys. Even struggles to kill the man that asks him to over letting two friends die. Even becomes broken when he fails to save a sniper only to watch them off themselves
Carnage is way worse than joker for the sheer fact as jokers just a man with mental issues, carnage has super strength, agility, a healing factor, and can straight up ruin more people in one night then joker could after a week of planning and getting everything together and building all the machines and hiring the henchman and mentally abusing Harley Quinn and all that junk
I think his reason for saying joke is more dangerous than carnage isn't about who kill more faster than other but comes down to the fact that carnage kills but the joke breaks and I don't mean physically I mean mentally like almost everything joke has done in his life is to try and break batman He completely broke harley quinn just so she can break out of prison and made her believe that he loves her when in reality he doesn't give a rat ass about her In the injustice universe the joke broke superman something no one has ever done before he did it in like three days But carnage only really cares about causing death and destruction But joke wants to show the whole world that everyone can become just like him and that all it's takes is one bad day
Joker is a person in DC who is so insane that he’s Super Sane. He knows he exists in a fictional world and that no one exists and that whatever he does doesn’t matter. That’s why Joker does the things he does. He’s a million times worse than Carnage
Although I agree with some points but it's not all batman fault sometimes it just lazy writing on the writers part but also on the Gotham's law like why tf are the judges not putting joker on the death penalty i know he's insane and can't be imprisoned lawfully but dude he's joker he can end the multiverse with enough prep time just make one exception lol
@@sukuna6630 MONEY. If you want to change the corrupt system back the people who you think should replace them. Unlike normal people, bruce wayne can afford entire campaigns and has enough influence to effect voters. Also if you are willing to illegal go on your streets and beat the shit out people than you should be willing to lobby for a better system.
nah, batman knows that being judge jury and executioner is way too much power for one man to have , so he only apprehends the criminals. He really is the best hero there is. What I don't understand is how the hell has the entire country not decided to kill the criminals of Gotham. Still Batman is the best superhero there is because he knows that there has to be limits and he draws them.
Don’t forget that in justice league(animated series) Batman told Clark to cry him a river when he refused to help darkseid. He listed every single thing he did, INCLUDING making Superman a weapon but he didn’t care
That whole scene was bullshit. It was hilarious that Superman was almost immediately proved right. Like people use that clip so much as an example of Batman's greatness, but neglect the fact that his self righteous bs gets the justice league played by one of the most duplicitous entities in the multiverse. It also nearly leads to their deaths as well, especially superman's.
@Joshua Agbettor To be fair, both Clark and Bruce had valid points. Clark was right not to trust Daekseid, but Bruce was also right in that, on the off chance it wasn't a trap, they needed to stop Brainiac since, given his tendency to steal others' knowledge, an evil AI with New God tech would be bad. Plus, I think it was less trying to stop Clark from killing Darkseid and more, "bro, the space station's going to self destruct we gotta go!"
So basically you kill if u have to. With kraven he wasn't a threat anymore but joker is still continuing to be one. It's not about " if I kill you. You win " type deal. It's about ending the threat whether they surrender an stop for good or they have to be killed
Hold up hold up. If I recall Joker was once arrested and kept in prison for about 7 years. But he was never given the death penalty for everything he did. Why?
My first thought is superman - one time in the comics when he actually killed a villain he gave up his powers because he believed he had failed as a hero,that he was supposed to be an inspiration for people to NOT kill,to forgive and try to be better people ,that it was better to talk than fight ,If superman killed all his villains he'd be proving Lex Luther right that superman was a threat and not someone to be trusted,someone they needed to get rid of,i personally feel as long as someone can be contained they should be but if they break out then a court of law can weigh the death penalty
This is why I love the invincible comics so much. Killing is a big part in those comics and we see the reasons and consequences of killing. And when Mark starts killing people it is seen as a danger that he's going down a bad path like his father. People have different reasons for killing and its not always clear weather those reasons are correct or not, even if they seem to be for the greater good.
I feel like Batman’s No Kill Rule comes from the fact that his father was a doctor Doctors actually have a kind oath(Hippocratic Oath-an updated version) that has a very specific no kill rule Him killing would somewhat mean rejecting what his father stood for(He has no idea whether Thomas Wayne would be ok with killing since some doctors are very extreme about that stuff)
if Batm,an said that i'd be okay with it if he said 'look I only put on the cape to save people a certain way' great. but thats not what he says he says 'if i kill one person then i'll kill everyone' he says 'if you kill a killer then the number of killers doesn't change' he says stuff like that that is meant to sound deep and cool and wise but ultimately just says 'this guy is an idiot and also should not be in a profession where he throws people off buildings'
Destiny 2 had a brilliant cutscene in one of its previous seasons that perfectly illustrated why sometimes it’s necessary to kill. “Mercy for an enemy cannot come at the cost of mercy for their victims.” Basically in that in showing mercy, you should consider if that will sue more harm to the people that person can harm. I do love Batman and I think that he should stick by his code… but he shouldn’t “save” Joker ever from those willing to do what he can’t.
The thing with Carnage is, people (including Spider-Man) HAVE tried to kill him plenty of times. He’s just so busted that it’s pretty much impossible. Dude got ripped in half and thrown into space and survived. Nothing Peter can do is gonna kill him.
Batman has always been on the edge of insanity and some say he already is, he refuses to kill because he's afraid that he'll a mass murdering monster. Joker always tells us this and has always been the driving force of the two's relationship. It's not like joker is hard to put down like carnage who is invincible to most ways of damage and is physically superior in every way to the superhero.
Yh honestly you could argue that Joker has already won. Purely because Batman trying to honour his code directly prevents justice from being served. He's as fragile as his idea of justice and his dynamic with Joker represents that. He can aprehend him as many times as he likes, but it never sticks. And Batman can't rid himself of the joker, because his entirely hero identity revolves around his insane disciplind and planning. This is mainly to make up for his mental fragility born from trauma. It seems more and more ironic given Batman's prep time feats.
Bat man's method for killing and his explanation is so misunderstood. When he says he will keep killing, hes saying it the vain of "you cant put the tooth paste back in the vase." The moment he does it, he will ALWAYS have that excuse. He can never change the fact he killed someone, which makes doing it easier as you've already done it before. No matter what, something will ALWAYS be easier the second time around. It doesnt matter who you are, its just humam nature. And killing the joker would only make the first time more enjoyable which would make a second time SO much easier.
So the basis of it is basically: Kill 1 person to spare thousands or Spare 1 person & doom thousands if not more. Every now n then a villain MIGHT spare someone but you don't see them going around not catching body after body. So in the same breathe why should a hero get traumatized thinking if he'll kill villain after villain? They're a hero, hopefully they can judge who is a threat that they'll waste time chasing weekly, or if it's a threat that needs to be "handled".
0:27 because he knows he might not be able to stop himself he might have low self control when it comes to stopping himself after he starts killing but he knows he does which is why he doesn’t
I've always wondered why when joker goes to arkham they don't kill him on electric chair or something for his crimes. I mean I know that he is still alive because of his popularity as a character but in DC universe, why is he still alive?
I mean it's not like the government can't sentence him to death, several Batman villains were taken to the suicide squad so it's not like the government doesn't know about them
Joker is legally insane and thus can't legally be held accountable for his actions, so instead of sentencing him to death they have to send him to an asylum for rehabilitation. Once the doctors deem him to be rehabilitated, they have to let him go. Half the time that's actually how criminals get out of Arkham instead of breaking out, then they either relapse or are revealed to be lying.
Basically hes to insane to stand trialeven though the insanity plea would be save him the first time around if he kept breaking out and killing people they would make an exception and kill him but in DC the insanity plea is a get out of jail free card
@@lukegraham1204 the thing is insanity pleas have limits, 1000+ deaths and constant escapes would exceed those limits. Also unless the prosecution is shit, you could argue joker isn't insane. Like sure he does crazy stuff, but with a very clear understanding of what he is doing, how wrong it is and how it effects people.
To me a hero does what’s needed regardless of if it’s right or wrong. For example sonic. In the black knights, if he stopped King Arthur, then the kingdom of Camelot would fall and sonic didn’t care. To quote him in the sacred rings, “It’s not about right or wrong for me, I just got to do what I got to do” Sonic has a belief system of freedom. He wants everyone to have the freedom to do what they want, but he is also free to stop anyone who tries to do bad. He may not kill the bad guy according to his beliefs, but sonic always steps up for the people at any time, any when, any where. He asks no questions, he just does it. And that’s admirable I think the difference between Batman and sonic is that sonic operates kind of like flash. He always gives his enemies the chance to reform, but ONLY after they stop being a threat/the threat is neutralized. And he genuinely believes in his friends enough so that if he were to fail, they’ll be able to handle the situation in his absence. He doesn’t work alone and he isn’t irresponsible. He’s always ready to make up for any mistakes he does and in IDW, eggman quite nearly did reform if it wasn’t for some other idiot turning him back to evil
But if batman killed joker, joker WOULD actually win. A great example is the story injustice where superman kills the Joker. Superman while in the beginning was still being his normal self, superman started to kill more and more criminals for petty crimes and justified it as "for justice and peace." Superman from being a symbol of peace and hope, became a dictator and ruled metropolis and soon the world with a iron fist with fear. Another example would be red hood. Red hood also started killing villains left and right be it gangsters, mafia leaders or killers, no second chances were given. Red hood even almost ended up being a villain. So in conclusion, killing joker or any villain could break a hero.
Except that version of supes was isolated from Bruce. He mostly arrested criminals and put them in prison. He even responsible for saving the earth from apokolips invasion. He was force into war with Bruce who was desperate enough to use the gods and even magic wild card against him. The only time when I can think supes killed discriminately was the joker gang in which they were backing harlequin the one responsible for the destruction of his city. And praising the joker who caused all this. And Shazam but that was the result of 5 years fighting a war against Bruce and all he could throw at him
After the bat family is set up he could just kill himself. It's shown many times that joker only lives for Bats. Even when he messes with the bat family it's all for batman. So if batman isn't around joker most of the time will disappear too leaving the other villains to the bat family.
@@neubaufahrzeug9339 ya but batman can't just leave gothem too. Just because if he left joker will stop doesn't mean other villains won't stop. Poison ivy, penguin, black mask, Mr freeze and calender man are great examples of not being motivated by batman
@@chuenjinyang4513 This is after setting up the bat family. If he has nightwing, oracle, red robin, damian, red hood, gotham girl, the signal, and batwing fighting crime then all that's left is to walk up to joker demask and shoot himself in the head ruining jokers game breaking him.
@@TheOneWhoShushes I don't know if you've realized this yet but harley quinn isn't a villan, she hasn't been for a while. She is supposed to be a victim of joker's charm and manipulation, she isn't a bad person she's just really messed up. Also superman used technology to enslave people and also used villans such as bane as goons, which is much worse than saving harley quinn. What people don't get is marvel and dc are telling different stories, dc is about gods trying to live amongst people. Marvel is about regular people given immense powers and struggling with the responsibilities of it, that's just a basic summarization so se storylines from both might deviate. My point is if I was immensely powerful then I would have the right to keep myself in check, we see Spider-Man struggle with this a lot throughout his storylines. But people like superman and batman who have lived long lives of discipline and responsibility, can't allow themselves to kill others because they aren't human they are observers. It's the same reason that portrayal of gods always seem annoying because they just smite whoever they want and do anything. They're gods amongst men and therefore have the responsibility to keep themselves in check.
What if Batman had to choose between killing Joker and saving innocent people? The fact that I don't know which choice he'd make just proves he can't be depended on.
I agree with the authors and writers when they say Batman doesn’t kill because he would have zero self control after that, but I hate it when other authors and writers make the reason as why Batman doesn’t just end the jokers life is because “hE WoUld WiN” like that sounds downright petty as hell, that the reason you don’t want to end joker is so that he wouldn’t have the last laugh wow that is real petty.
A Hero by definition is someone who is admired for their noble/righteous qualities. That could include someone not killing someone else even if it is the best outcome for the most people
But the difference between that and this is that joker was desperate at that point and wanted Batman to kill him and he just went and wreaked havoc all over Gotham and recreated a scene where Batman lost his parents in front of a little girl and jokerfied her after all just to make batman snap and kill as the last resort as you could he had his worst toxin in his heart that turned the Batman into the new joker.
Batmans whole deal is that he is crazy. Batman is just as crazy as the villains be fighting. He is obsessed with justice and vengence. He simply can't do it. Not that he's not willing, but his mental condition is like an achor or weight around his neck. He simply can't because he is forced to. It's an impluse. It's ingrained in his soul. Like how the riddler can't stop leaving clues. He is absolutely compelled to beat batman on a mental level. Through his plans and riddles. The joke wants to have more "fun" with batman. Posion ivy has her plants. Batman is in an insane person, but he's just on the side of the angels is all.
Even in the latest movie, Spiderman was ready to kill Green Goblin. The only thing that prevented him was ironically Spiderman himself (The Toby McGuire one). And even Toby's Spiderman killed Venom in his universe.
And also as far as new Goblin and Spider-Man knew in that movie turning Sandman into glass was most likely going to kill him but just happened to have not too
Carnage is the easiest "Just kill him" decision ever, like he's already an escaped death row inmate so honestly your just doing the government's job for them, shit they should pay whoever does the job a large sum at this point. Batman is a bit tricky and by a bit tricky I mean they solved this delema in Batman begins "I won't kill you... but that doesn't mean I have to save you." so just let Damian or whatever that edgy Robin with the sword's name is go ham on the joker then have Jason and Barbara have a "murder rules" talk with him after.
At times like this I think about Mark from Invincible and the guilt he'd use to feel when he had to take a life. He always wished there was a better way and regretted not finding one😔
him not having self control is what makes him my favorite hero. this man is 1 kill away from being a universal threat. that makes him so much more interesting than any other hero imo.
As someone who still has the dream to become a hero I kinda agree. I believe a hero should save others first and foremost, if there is a train barreling towards a family on your left and a family on your right that's about to be shot by the guy you were just fighting then it's the heroes job to save both parties, when you put on that mask or suit your saying to the world "I will be there when you need me most, I will save you all". Yeah sure there's gonna be moments when you can't save everyone but a heroes primary goal is to preserve life not take it that's why for better or worse I agree with Batman to an extent. I don't think heroes or any person should be allowed to choose when someone should die that's for fate or whatever you believe in to decide. But if a joker like threat we're to appear yeah sure maybe once after he broke out would a I put him back in, but if he were to do it again I'm bringing him back with his neck crushed or completely paralyzed cause immobilizing someone is also an option but most people always think of the nuclear option, killing
If you want to be a true hero you need to put down all threats especially people who are constantly ignoring the law like kingpin. When Spiderman only decided to kill kingpin if aunt may died was the biggest proof of hypocrisy ever because how many other people has the kingpin killed either directly or indirectly. Were the other deaths by his hand not enough to make spiderman want to kill him? Were the other deaths not good enough to condemn him to death simply because those people weren't loved by someone with superpowers?
@@alchemist0019Funny how you say this, but there are also many people who want him dead. Most people who wants Kingpin dead is his rival and enemies, most people forgot if Kingpin is dead, somebody that is equal or even worse is just gonna take his spot.
I’d say that Batman acknowledging his lack of self control is why I’d respect him so much as hero. He knows where he is in the head, the first time is all it takes to get hooked. It’s like an addiction; if you know you can’t stop, then don’t start. Him recognizing his humanity and his flaws adds to his character and doesn’t detract.
@@jmc5661then who's gonna be the person to protect Gotham? Cause none of the other main heroes patrol Gotham besides the bat family and almost none of them are really capable of protecting the city as well as batman did
@@paperplanez104 i dunno dude. If there was a guy out there who would go on a mass rampage if he killed on person.... maybe he shouldnt be in a profession where he throws people off roof tops. like it's straight up only plot armour that he doesn't have a huge body count just by accident with hw may people he fights.
Sometimes being a hero isn't enouph. Sometimes the law gets in the way of saving people. Sometimes you must break the law to do what is best for everyone. And you probably will be hated and treated like a villain for doing so. Vigilanteism Sometimes is the only way.
I think when it comes to Batman, it is less about morality, and more about keeping himself on a leash. He is afraid that if he kills someone, with his mental state being the hot garbage fire tossed into a volcano that it is, that he will do it again, and again, and again. Remember when he got the Moebius chair? He left a group of thieves in the ARCTIC. I see your points and I agree, but it is a matter of restraint on his own broken self, than anything else.
I never saw Killing Joke like that. I always saw Batman and Joker laughing as an acknowledgment of the futility of Batman trying to help him because Joker fundamentally believes he’s too far gone. The entire point was proving Joker wrong cuz it was getting that bad. But you’re right. Batman being smart enough to understand that Joker is a monster makes that dynamic make no sense and Bats saying he has no self-control is a new perspective to that take I’ll have to consider. That’s why the better stories are the ones where Joker hasn’t crossed that moral event horizon.
The world of mha,has a rule against killing villains,its illegal But it didn't stop all might from "killing afo" the first time,and no one blamed him for that Because they know how dangerous the "demon king" is And even if they wanted to do something,what could they?take in the symbol of peace because he killed the worst of the worst? Batman's situation is no different, a lot less people care about him, and he's not necessarily the symbol of peace,thats superman BUT he is still a well respected hero And everyone knows how dangerous joker is Honestly, people who defend batman's no kill rule, especially for joker Are just insane
I think the meaning behind the end of "The killing joke" with Joker telling the joke and Batman laughing with him, was symbolizing that deep down both of them are insane in a way. As Bruce told wonder woman: "I'm a rich kid with issues....LOTS of issues." On top of that the theory of people saying he killed Joker in that instant off screen, implies he DID finally push batman over the edge, and Batman had to take him out. Realizing finally have a joker was too far gone to be saved
My 2 cents, heroes don't have to save everyone. There are people beyond saving, and if they die to their own actions and nobody else dies with them, then the heroes not obligated to save them the worse they are, like if it's Catwoman, she's petty burglar tops, save her, but if it's joker, don't bother. It's like saying Captain America should save Hitler, it's a bad argument, some people don't deserve life. That's horrible to say, but i mean again, some of these villains have higher body counts than literally army's combined, that's not worth saving. It's literally a trolly problem at that point, 1 person for millions and billions. I get your point and do agree that hunting them down to kill is crossing a line, but if they pull a bomb and it's stuck on them, throw them into the sky and watch the dirty fireworks fly for super villains like the one's mentioned in video.
Honestly? I don't think batman should be the one to kill the joker, because that's exactly what Joker wants. Joker has this idealized idea of how he'd like to go out, at batman's hands. Instead it should be some random gothamite nobody that's out for revenge. then Joker would die both sad and mad over the fact that he got taken out by some random nobody. better yet if it's some chubby mom-type wearing curlers and a mumu who's wielding a sniper rifle from a rooftop, going: "this is for my husband and children that you murdered, you son of a b***h!" before nailing him in the head. and then she does down to drag the joker off to get cremated or something, so that nobody can revive him in the lazusus pits or something like that.
Joker's end should be like it was in Batman Beyond, someone laughing at his face making fun of him and proving that he's just some loser with a gimmick.
I hear you what you're saying. And this isn't a counter argument, this is another thing to discuss about. Maybe the justice system or jails/prisons need better security or better measures. Cuz I've heard this argument stated like this "well you stop one person and he gets out and kills 10 more of your responsible for those type of deaths, you should have just ended the one person and save those 10 people" I just think like shouldn't they been locked up shouldn't the people that had him locked up do a better job
Even though Spider-man is willing to kill he holds back so much and doesn’t realize it Spider-Man is as strong or actually even stronger than the thing
Here’s my philosophy: Heroes should have the right to do what needs to be done, including killing the villains. However, they must learn the meaning and consequences of their actions and be ready for them. It’s not so black and white to say heroes should or shouldn’t kill villains. I’ll use TFP Optimus Prime as an example: On many occasions, he could’ve easily killed Megatron or any other Decepticon on the spot. He can also be used and fueled by emotions at times, bringing him to a state where he almost always tried to kill. However, he has the resolve to restrain the temptation to kill. He knows what’ll happen if his enemies die and seeks to obtain the most ideal outcome for all sides, good and evil. All in all, a hero that kills their villains must ensure their mind is as strong, if not stronger than their body. Murder is a complex topic and emotions surrounding it are even more so.
I would say it depends on which version of the Joker you are talking about and the fact that Gotham needs a death penalty as well as other cities, but especially Gotham. If we are talking about the Joker who's all for theatrics, gassing people, robbing banks, without killing people. Then no he should't be killed but definitely heavily guard so he won't create any more disturbances. If the Joker does kill that is for the laws to decide his crimes, if the law is too corrupt then have someone who 1. Believes killing criminals is necessary 2. Not motivated by revenge or anger= Maybe the Punisher or some other anti-hero to kill the Joker. It doesn't have to be Batman that does the deed. Cause once he does do it he's falling into that dark home and never coming back.
A psychologist once said in a video about analysing the joker. Joker doesnt need a mental asylum because he is completely aware of what is he doing he knows its wrong but does it just to spite batman. He is not crazy, he is a high functioning psycopath who enjoys tormenting people. As a hero this is really a hard call to make but even i know when lives of innocent are at stake against him i would not hesitate to eliminate the threat.
My 2 cents: Batman doesn't need to become a killer. Gotham needs the death penalty. Or at least better security and management for their prisons and asylums.
Honestly at this point if Bats doesn't think he can pull the metaphorical trigger and put the Joker down then he should at least let a hero with no issues doing so have 5 minutes with tye clown. He's got options
Get rid of Arkham asylum it doesn't work.
They do. The problem is that Joker just gets sent to Arkham every time by plea of insanity. Which is basically a get out of jail free card for him. But even if you do lock him up tight, what's to stop some super psycho from breaking him out again. Which happens....A LOT
@@csab8642he really shouldn’t be a hero either if he’s that mentally unstable
Like, I understand why Gotham doesn't have that and why they keep sending them to a fucking Asylum and not a, Idk, a SUPER HUMAN PRISON???? That's more of the city's fault tbh.
Well let’s be honest the joker still being alive isn’t just on Batman, it’s on the justice system of the comic world, there’s gotta be a point where they should have just given joker the chair
The chair? No, Floyd treatment is the ending he deserve
Very true
They already did give the joke of the chair it didn't stick
I blame the writers for anyone
I’d prefer a quick batarang slash across my throat then spending months in a barren cell, my mind going numb as I wait for my death. The smell of burning flesh wafting into my nose as I wait for it to be carried out.
I don’t really blame Batman for Joker as much as the courts.
Judge, “Let’s see… He has a body count in the thousands if not more and has maimed a hundred times as many people. I could give him the chair… Nah. Send him back to the place that’s proven it can’t hold him.”
This is the problem with the grimdarkification of Batman. Back in the day (most pre-90s comics and most of Batman TAS afaik) the Joker also didn't kill people, at least not on page/screen, he robbed banks, made super laughing gas (horrifying but not lethal), his pranks could be humiliating, terrifying, nightmarish, but never explicitly lethal, the same rule applied to pretty much all Batman rogues. IIRC this was to do with the CCA, but it still had a good effect on the story. It was a much better approach because in that context Batman's commitment makes sense, he's refusing to kill because the people he's fighting aren't murderers, mass or otherwise, he's sticking to proportionate use of force (mostly, concussing the Riddler for kidnapping his abusive boss is arguable). It made Batman's commitment to trying to redeem these people logical, and they even show it working (until plot resets) with some of them like Harley Quinn, Killer Croc, and Babydoll. The reason the Joker is a good foil for that Batman is because all the other rogues have motives Batman can understand and work to redirect or satisfy in a nonharmful way or traumas he can help heal, while the Joker literally just wants Chaos, even his robberies are just to fund his next Epic Prank, and Batman can't figure out how to handle that because even the World's Greatest Detective (remember when Batman actually did that instead of using "enhanced interrogation"?) couldn't find anything out about the Joker beyond what the Joker showed the world.
TLDR if you want your Batman to stick to "I Never Kill" then you have to apply the same rule to his villains.
It's so weird. I completely forgot it wasn't always this grimdark.
Thanks for this paragraph
That sums it up perfectly
💀
Honestly batman as a character just weirdly is a little too fantastical to be grounded in a more real world like supes and spiderman can be.
I honestly feel like he’s sorta at his best when he exists in a semi-cartoonish world that can balance the darkness with some color, whimsy and wit (batman TAS being an obvious example)
Trying to ground a world like that to the real world is a death sentence cause literally all it does is just unearth a billion inconsistencies and unfortunate implications and lead to you taking away and asking the wrong questions about batman, his characters and his story.
I hate the “batman beats up the mentally ill instead of using his riches to actually take down the systems that allow these criminals to breed” crowd but it IS true tho.
The comics go into a billion other things bruce uses his wealth for to fix crime on a larger scale
The reason why most of these things never go anywhere despite being done is because of the Out of universe reason being that gotham sorta has to always be fucked and have villains in order for there to BE batman stories.
Kill the joker? He has, matter of fact, everyone has. The problem? You can be revived a billion different ways in the comics, death is more like an inconvenience if anything
There are HUMANE permanent ways to rehabilitate the joker without killing or lobotomizing him, the reason we’re never gonna see those is because there’d be no story if that shit was permanent. 💀
Looking at this, the issue doesn't seem to lie with Bats; it's Gotham PD.
Batman is a vigilante after all; disabling the threat and having Joker sent to prison - if he's that dangerous, they should put joker down. It's expecting a little too much to blame it all on Batman (even if his excuses do become a little lame - that said, killing once would lead to a slope of it being too easy to just kill your enemies, so it should still absolutely be a last resort). If everyone thinks Batman should kill Joker, why isn't any of that blame hitting Gotham where the clown continues to break out and cause mayhem again. In fact, he's an ordinary human - how are they allowing him to escape so easily so often?
Finally, it's clearly just a byproduct of Comicbooks - we can't kill off joker because the it kills off that Batman VS Joker dynamic that the audience enjoys so much. So we keep him alive, come up some moral insight to give enough of a reason to suspend disbelief, and continue the path of escalation to keep it interesting.
You know that a good point
You know what's funny? Apparently there is death penalty in Métropolis but not in Gotham.
@@sgcastle8389 that's actually hilarious
I think the Arkham Games touched on this with a scene from Arkham Knight, where Batman (under scarecrows fear gas) pulls a revolver on scarecrow as he is “influenced” by the joker he has trapped in his mind. His biggest fear next to the joker, was killing. He is legitimately afraid of what he’d be like if he pulled the trigger.
Actually, another thing is, Batman even stated in the comics that while he won't be willing to kill anyone himself, he's not entirely against other heroes offing villains themselves.
Correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying they should kill their more heinous villains but spare the tamer ones?
Yeah he’s definitely saying that
I mean it's not their place to do that though, they have no right to be judge ,jury, and executioner
@@ninjatortise8958 I agree with you to an extent. That extent for the jokers and carnages of the world, some villains just gotta die
Yes.
@@ninjatortise8958 they have no right to assault others too
I do agree that Joker should be killed, but not by Batman. It should be Gotham, and the problem with is Spider-Man. He did stop somebody from killing Carnage, in Carnage USA after they got Kasady from taking over a whole town a father was about to shoot him, Spider-Man stopped him and then the man said I had three kids, now I only have two. The end
Batman should kill. He indirectly cost the deaths of thousands
@@draco_1876 So Batman should just be a murderer because killing is like potato chips, why in the world would you ever just stop with one
@@trevorghalt1881 if Batman can't simply kill one man then he's just as mentally weak and unstable as the criminals he puts away then he has no business being a hero no? Those are the type of choices he has to make dealing with nutjobs who actually don't value humans life it's his life or thousands of others.
@@jfoster8624 Some criminals don't deserve to die.
@@jacobpainter1962 I agree but joker is not one of them
Spiderman is willing to kill Carnage, but the problem is he's unkillable.
Bro even Sentry (Marvel's strongest superman clone) can't kill him. And people seriously blame Peter for not killing Carnage
Not really lol
I mean carnage isn’t really a problem for sentry he can just rip him in half again with no effort lol
Yet Peter didn't want him to die in maximum Carnage.
@@kwayneboy1524 are we talking the marvel kids cartoon. Of course Spiderman wouldn't light up a man right in front of the kids.
People need to understand just how unstable Batman is. The no kill rule for him isn't really for moral reasons. It's so he doesn't go overboard to the point where he kills anyone for any little thing, cause he is in fact insane in his own way.
it don't even matter if they undersand because the reason people hate Batman is because of a bias against his character and his fanbase(rightfully so in most cases). Other superheroes get the benefit of the doubt in situations that go wrong or whatever but Batman is the poster boy of being shut down and criticized because people boiler plate him down into his worse qualities. like it's not even criticism people will outright slander his name because of purposeful character flaws that are meant to further the plot more than anything and make stories interesting.
Joker understands that and is why he is always pushing Batman to kill him.
@@Lord-Weasel THANK YOU! Finally someone gets it
@@giovannidiaz4633 on a serious note all of Batman's rogue gallery pale in comparison to Joker. They have done evil stuff but there has always almost been a reason but not Joker.
@@kennethcooper1124I will criticize any superhero that has a hard rule of “no killing, no matter the circumstance.” Batman is just the one who is most known for this rule while also having a prime example, the Joker, on why this rule sucks.
This is unrelated but if I remember correctly, in the original ending of "The Killing Joke", while the movie ends, the screen cuts to black while batman and joker were laughing but instead of it ending just like that, batman actually snaps the joker's neck right then and there. they changed it in the final cut because it didn't go well with test audiences I think. imo it would've been WAYY better if they kept it in.
In the comic it was left much more ambiguous, as it wasn't clear if the Joker stopped laughing from having his neck snapped or just stopped laughing in general
the ending of killing joke was non canon so allen moore wanted it to be left to interpretation if he killed him or let him live.
@@abdullahyildiz3060 if I remember correctly Allen Moore did come out and say Batman did not kill the Joker.
Yeah that's not what happened he didn't snap his neck considering the fact that this man is in the next comic book proceeding The Killing Joke he was not killed I don't know why people seriously believe he died when Barbara getting shot is something that shows up in the future Comics including the one right afterwards why do you honest to God think that the Joker died what happened was he almost definitely beat him then he put him in the police car
@@abdullahyildiz3060 The Killing Joke as a whole was supposed to be non canon.
The question boils down to: can this threat be contained/neutralised without killing them?
If yes - bring them to court and they then decide what happens, fair and square. That includes a possible death penalty.
If no - then you can make an exception to kill them in fight because they are simply too dangerous to be left alive.
Joker can absolutely be contained without killing him. Not giving him the death penalty is on whatever kind of jury is handeling him.
Stuff like Carnage or worse can and perhabs should be killed in action because you cannot safely contain them until a trial, let alone keep them in prision.
Difference here, Joker constantly escapes prison! Constantly, cuz he has friends and Harley usually, and every time he gets out, he ensures he can or his pals can break him out of Arkham! And post-60's Joker continues to kill and kill and kill! At this point it's about eqully Batmans fault as Jokers when the clown does mass murder or something.
@@aliahpersonous2893 difference is the joker can be contained and is never given the death penalty
@@o.8.p149 I mean my experience with every cartoon and movie ever tells me he will escape and escape and escape.. Unless he’s lobotomized.
@@aliahpersonous2893 yes. But that's not on Batman. Batman follows the law and contains him until his sentence by the court. The court are the dumb guys for not saying we should kill him.
@@xaphan_fallen_angel the court can’t kill joker because there’s no such thing as a death penalty in Arkham
A bit more context on that kraken story. They had been psychicly attacking Peter for weeks by messing with the web of fate. Him not putting that spear through kravens chest was a testament to Peter's Will.
This is why my general rule of superheros is "Anybody can be saved but not everybody deserves to be saved"
Also to be fair tho: The Justice system in DCU refuses to give Joker the death sentence. You can argue that Batman doesn’t have the right to kill anyone since he is a vigilante. But yeah. Some villains do need to be killed.
He doesn’t have a legal right to do half the stuff he does anyways
@@_Sloppyham and that is somehow supposed to excuse him killing? To do it more. To break even more rules?
@@moistfist1054 yes? Is this supposed to be a gotcha question? He’s taking the law into his own hands to do what cops can’t. Why shouldn’t he kill a serial mass murderer?
@@ChromaticEaglehe shouldn't do it as a symbol imo, he works as bruce to reform the systems and batman to enforce justice, someone absolutely should've tho lol
2:40 I think you missed the point of that scene (which is far enough, the move did too). The idea is that Batman’s laughing because he finally snapped. The comic implies he killed the Joker (though of course it doesn’t confirm it, but that was clearly the authors intent).
"Mercy for an Enemy cannot come at the cost of their victims."
-Lord Saladin
I'll be honest, if I was a guard at Arkham and saw Joker being dragged in for the millionth time, I'd shoot him on the spot, consequences be damned.
They tried that once Harley Quinn saved him
Two times a charm?
@@brandonfitzgerald1457This is why pistols have more than 1 bullet
Honestly with Batman?
A big thing about his No kill Rule is because he doesn’t want to kill not because it’s an easy answer, but because it’s an easy escalation for him. He KNOWS the second he gives into the temptation to kill, he’ll just keep killing, and killing and killing until any jaywalker is scared for his life. Because Batman is fully aware that he’s just one bad decision away from becoming more dangerous than Joker
All I'm hearing is that Batman is just as, if not more, unhinged than the joker
@@dracogatom7873 I'm pretty sure he is. You don't walk away from watching your parents being killed in front of you unscathed.
@@dracogatom7873 I'm what sane person would unironically dress as a bat to beat up random criminals
Sounds like Batman have no self control for thinking like that what’s the point of being a superhero for if he think he be triggered happy by killing the joker
@@Demon-dg8nb no the thing is, his self control is the thing keeping him from going fatal
"Good Men don't need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many." - The Doctor, The Slaughterer of the Ten Billion
What bugs me most about this topic is the characters that tell Batman to kill Joker are actually more concerned with making him kill than actually stopping the Joker themselves (granted he'd inevitably come back from the dead). It's not about doing what needs to be done, it's just wanting to prove Batman wrong and thdm right.
There was also that time Batman was going to kill the Joker during the Hush storyline only for Gordon to stop him. Batman's refusal to kill is the main thing that seperate him from being a violent vigilante instead if a hero.
Injustice showed Superman being the Joker's greatest victory by turning a hero into a tyrant, and Batman would definitely go down that same path if he broke his no killing rule.
Batman, for all intents and purposes does not have a license to kill. He’d be going too far outside of the law. The Gotham PD is where the majority of the problem lies, they fail to put these villains all the way through death row. They really just protect them from Batman until they break out again.
Yes, but Batman exist in the first place to do what cops couldn't do. He is already outside the law, there are time when murder is necessary but he wouldn't do that. Because he is too crazy to stop after one murder.
He took the responsability to do whatever it takes to stop crime and do what's necessary to save people but he can't finish the war he started.
He's already a vigilante
The Police don't decide death row, that would be like a court/jury.
Literally like almost all the gcpd wants Batman to kill the Joker and wouldn't care if he actually did it they'd be happy even like Iron Man is the closest superhero to Batman he doesn't necessarily have a no kill rule but if he's fighting a group of henchman and you happen to die well tough luck you shouldn't have been a villain but you don't see him losing it just because he killed one bad guy
He doesn't have to kill him he just need to make a prison himself for the joker batman just likes to play hero there are far more better ways to bring justice and help the people other than dressing like a furry and wasting money on useless stuff and making kids fight. But in the end it's DC's fault for not letting the character finish its story and actually achieving something meaningful
“Nowhere near the threat that Joker is”
Nah, I have to disagree. Joker is a serious threat, but Carnage has shown himself to be a bigger threat.
The thing is Joker is insanely smart and has outsmarted the justice league multiple times. Carnage doesn’t really have a plan he just kills. It’s the difference in threat between a corrupt politician and a mass murderer. The murderer is going to just rampage or at worst plant a bomb. A politician can can destroy nations without even going there. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword.
@@kingcyclops4079 great analogy
Joker is the main reason why Injustice is even a thing.
@@owo4288 Dont forget when he became emperor joker by tricking a 5th dimensional being.
Didn't Carnage just murder the symbiote god 😂
In most ways you're right, but keep in mind than in every single timeline that I can think of where he killed the Joker (or anyone for that matter), something horrible happens. Anything from mass slaughter to full-on apocalypses. Batman is not well in the head, and he KNOWS it.
In most ways hes wrong
@@jessicapinkman-hd4bwFalse. He didn’t kill joker in the 1989 film. Joker did that to himself.
@@jessicapinkman-hd4bwThe last one isn’t valid the first one is valid
@@firestriker3580he literally strapped him to a gargoyle with his grappling hook causing it to break off causing him to fall to his death he even beforehand declares his intentions to kill him
Under normal circumstances, it would be correct to say Batman is a fool for refusing to kill.
However, we've *SEEN* what happens when Batman breaks that one rule he set for himself, and it has *always* ended badly.
Essentially.
Even if a villain needs to die, under no circumstances should we EVER let Batman be the one to do it.
Meme or not I appreciate how you are talking about this topic
I think a good example of how Batman operates and potentially would operate IF he started killing people is Edward Elric; specifically from the 2003 version of FMA. Ed essentially holds the same No-Kill Rule as Batman with the will to hurt someone enough like SpiderMan; If they're beaten, they're not a threat. There is the instance with Roy Mustang where they fight and because he tore his glove he assumed "he is beaten" and there for was caught off guard when Roy revealed he had a second one. Showing that he should, at the very least, cover all his bases if that'll be his way of doing things despite being a militant state alchemist.
Now comes his fight with Greed. He eventually figures out how to get around Greed's shield and by all means, it's a pretty "by any means necessary" sort of thing where Greed's skin and shit comes off and he has to choose between regeneration or his shield. Greed (in this version) lets Ed kill him, to help prepare him for HOW to deal with the other homunculus (they need to be near their original remains). Ed has a legit mental breakdown that very moment, and by the time it comes for him to kill Sloth, who is essentially his mom, he doesn't seem NEARLY as bothered as you might think he would considering who Sloth is based off of. He's upset but he essentially rationalizes it as "Homunculi are the taboo mistakes of alchemist. You're my mistake. I'm righting that wrong." He treats it like they're just AI that need to be turned off despite KNOWING that Homunculi have feelings and are basically jusy superhumans (Lust wants a life for herself, Wrath [kid] wants a mom, Greed is loyal to those he "claims" and as such takes care of what is his, Gluttony no joke becomes DEPRESSED when Lust dies, Sloth has a compulsive need to pacify Wrath since that's how Trisha was (a phenomenal mom), Pride shows at least some form of care and compassion for his wife and child, and Envy... is Envy).
Batman would probably be the same way. It's just as much about perserving as many lives as possible as it is about self-control. Sounds counterintuitive considering how many bodies Joker has tallied, but in the long run? Batman can kill far more criminals than Joker can civilians if he were inclined to do so.
You’re comparing the potential kills of the joker being stopped to the Batman killing more criminals, but you forgot to include the potential goof of stopping criminals from doing future wrong (such as murder).
Killing doesn’t make it right
Man all I hear is that Batman has no self control.
The issue with ur logic is that in MANY other comics. Spidey displays the desire to NEVER kill.
Back in black was peter losing his moral code for one person that DEFINITELY wronged him. But we see that peter wouldnt always react like that in Red goblin when peter spares norman who JUST killed flash.
You forget that literally right before this, Peter was ready to wipe Norman off the census until Flash begged him not to with his dying breaths, asking him not to corrupt the symbiote with his rage.
@@wesleygriffiths8748 👆
@@wesleygriffiths8748 so in other words spiderman has bad self control.
Did they bring him back to life yet or is he still dead?
@@totallynotinsane3327 or it was the literal symbiote trying to take control
To me, I've always felt that what makes a true hero is to understand your enemies and talk them out of being a criminal. To truly understand why and how they became the way that they are and to help them make better choices. I recognize that some heroes have done this before, but they end poorly simply because the villain BELIEVES that life cannot get better, BELIEVES they're too far gone to ever be a normal member of society, BLAMES the hero for not being there for them and saving them when they were at their lowest, or the villain actively chooses not to become good.
Invincible is a great example of this
I like the killing joke ending cause it ends in that way that it’s just too late for any help for Batman to truly do anything that they’re both insane for keeping this game ongoing with each other
but clearly that cannot happen with the joker he can't be reasoned with he has no empathy no remorse he just likes killing people
The real reason heroes don't kill: kid friendly marketing.
True
Also in these “kid friendly” things; joker takes naked pics of Barbara Gordon and tied up her dad nude and made him look at them.
I believe that Batman has a much deeper and frightening reason he doesn't kill the Joker than "I'll fall into a pit of murderous rage and kill all my enemies" which is true considering other Bat-media. If so why would he have a problem with Jason or Gordon or Barbara killing the Joker. I think deep in his fractured psyche he wants the Joker alive. He wants his life to be nothing but the same ritual of "Joker escapes Arkham, Batman fights him, the Joker loses, Batman locks him in Arkham". This could also be supported by the times Batman brought him back from the dead. Bruce hates Joker to such a degree he can't live without him.
That’s sick af
@@y67moneyy182 I mean that’s basically it they can’t exist without one another when Batman died in a comic joker stop doing crime cuz no one was there to stop him
Naw as he has other problems to deal with both in Gotham or justice league he doesn’t want to become a killer like joe chill who killed his mom and dad or to go around acting like the law handing death penalties out if joker must be killed so do the other killers in Gotham that’s it there’s no he kills once that’s it
Batman is afraid to be happy that why he does this.
@@Channel-23s hmmmm idk about that man. What other villain has committed crimes on su h atrocious levels like the joker. That man has to die. Batman sends him to Archambault just so he can break out and kill again? That's kinda fucked bucko
I think the reason that Batman doesn't kill Joker stems from his personal guilt over turning him into the Joker to begin with. He keeps letting him live because he already broke him and believes that he has a responsibility to right his wrong. If he kills the Joker, he basically admits to himself that not everyone can be redeemed. And if he admits that, then what does he really hope to accomplish by being Batman? Batman is supposed to change Gotham for the better, but if people can't really change then Batman becomes pointless. If Batman is pointless then his parents died for nothing. His whole legacy would become worthless.
He can't kill because everyone should have the chance to be saved, even the ones who don't deserve it. It's not his place to make that call.
@@jacobpainter1962 Wow what a naive point of view
@@jacobpainter1962 opinionated soldiers kill and are heroes ,Cops kill and are heroes, and Jury could give a death penalty, and even KKK were seen as heroes once. But if the cops, military, and jury choose not to then sometimes you gotta take lives for the better if they just petty small time criminals or were forced into it don't kill them. But if they are can kill and continue without remorse. Why should you not give them the same plus it will be seen as self defense if you are in civilian clothing then it is ok. But if you are some vigilante then do what needs to be and take a life if no one else will stop them from causing to much havoc
@@jacobpainter1962 We had a court system that did it. And they are choosing who lives and dies to have a safer place by getting rid of the worst of the worst.
@@jacobpainter1962 Ok and they are leaving it to the government and theirs aren't doing a Damn thing and with that people will take matters into their own hands
@@jacobpainter1962 you sure it's me who's thinking hard this is pretty simple
“all I hear is you have no self control” fucking sent meeeee😂😂
2:21
The irony is that Batman has the most self control when it comes to not killing the joker.
Batman represents justice, Spider-man responsibility. Justice is somebody being tried under court of law, innocent until proven guilty in front of a jury of their peers. Responsibility is doing everything in your power to fulfil that for which you are responsible.
Batman is rarely even a peer to those he fights, and he is certainly not the court of law. Therefore if he kills, he fails just as much as if Spider Man were to willingly allow others to be in danger.
"Batman knows he'll continue killing "
So you mean to tell me Batman has the restraint and self control to not kill but when he does kill one joker all of a sudden he'll lose his mind.
Listen I'm not bothered by his no killing rule cause there's no point in arguing it but then when he says shit like "I remember all the people I killed by keeping joker alive" it's like now we're expected to feel sorry for bats and that i outright refuse. You can't have your cake and eat it too
True
When you think about it idealistically what Batman saying is the right thing to do but morally and realistically Batman's freaking crazy he just admitted that he knows he's getting people killed by letting him live and he's willing to let it continue because he's too far gone on his moral high horse with his holier than thou stick up his ass to actually admit he's mentally and morally the weakest
I agree with all your points about batman but about the cake thing what's the point of having cake if you can't eat it.
@@Red-mx9tx it just means that we're expected to feel sorry about batman nit killing and how it affects jokers victims while also supporting his no killing rule which would be a solutiom to the problem he's creating.
Think it more like an addiction.
I feel like using Spider-man isn’t a good idea because he actually doesn’t kill. In the Kraven situation he had the symbionts suit which influenced his personality to make him more brutal. Then the Spider-man with the suit is Superior Spider-man who is Peter being controlled by Doc Ock. So Spider-man isn’t willing to kill, it’s only in those circumstances where he wears the symbionts suit and his is mind controlled by doc ock is that he was willing to kill.
Well the black suit he had on wasn't the og SYMBIOTE it was a replica made after he threw it out but only wears it if he's PISSED
@@NigelByrd so it's a suit made to reflect his mind at the time
@@jinxact532 yes
@@NigelByrd that's fuckin awaome
Infinity War Spiderman and Sam Raimi First Spider-Man movie.
The only reason they make stories like "The Batman who laughs" and "Injustice" is to justify him letting joker get out and kill thousands over, and over, and over again.
Exactly. The funny thing is all the stories which batman lets the joker go prove batman wrong. The joker has pretty much given batman the solution to beating him. Stop being batman. Without batman, the joker has no purpose. If Bruce faked batman's death and then created an entirely new superhero identity and change up his methods, he could stop the joker once and for all.
This is it fr lol
The whole point is that Batman is not just a man. He is literally the symbol of good for Gotham. Joker wants to prove humanity is crazy and twisted just like him by forcing Batman to brake his one rule. To kill out of hatred.
Then don’t kill out of hatred 🤷
@@justaguywithagoodphoto4801 bruh
@@vangler6492 its that easy the joker is a mere man, he only gets away with this non sense because batman would have no purpose anymore he’d only need to be bruce
@@justaguywithagoodphoto4801 points that were already addressed by the comments
1.) Killing more makes it way to easy to do it again for less ( also something batman talked about under the red hood)
2.) Gotham pd is the one letting joker escape. Batman is just the one that sends them in, but the asylum just keeps allowing them to get out .
3.) Batman doesnt see himself as a judge, jury, and executioner.
4.) Also him killing would kind if also take the point out of the crusade, since his sole main motivator Is to ensure that more kids may not have to grow up in a position of an orphan . ( sometime even the criminals are parents themselves ) .
1. I do agree killing more can sometimes make it easier to do but honest when your doing something as killing the joker there really shouldn’t BE a struggle with it all
2. If gotham pd doesn’t do why has no one tried to kill him a civilian could do it and it’d be no problem the joker doesn’t even make it that hard for anyone to get him he goes with the flow all they’d have to do is exploit gothams poor excuse of a law and nobody would blame him
3. Thats fair, until literally everyone starts to question why nobody has killed the joker
4. Alright fair enough
Fun fact: in 60+ years of spider-man being in comics, he has only killed once! And it was by accident!
Another Fun fact: The punisher once tried to kill joker in a crossever, but batman came to save joker 😂
"Oh."
The truth is that Joker should be dead, but Batman shouldn't have to kill him. Batman cleans the streets, but he isn't the one in charge of the city.
Blame the GCP and the government. Or the writers lol
It’s the fact that we know that Batman has the potential to kill gods and people don’t understand the connotations of him going down a slippery slope of killing criminals. The fact is that he understands that Joker isn’t his biggest threat physically but he’s a big threat mentally. Joker is a challenge Batman always has to face because not only does he need someone to keep him in check in a sort of symbiotic relationship, but he’s a vigilante at the end of the day, and he knows that unchecked power would corrupt him if he let it. After all, there isn’t a single person in Gotham that could actually stop him if he really wanted to go all out and he knows that.
If that's the case, then why doesn't anybody put the joker in the phantom zone? Because correct me if I am wrong, he would have virtualky no way of escaping. Also it's not like it could make him any worse to be in there.
@@joshuaagbettor5610 because plot.
Seriously these are all options, but they'll never happen because they can't kill the joker, or get rid of him.
@@joshuaagbettor5610 Weeeellll, technically it HAS happened before. In the Lego Batman Movie. And that didn’t really go well. But with NORMAL Joker, IDK.
I see what you’re saying and I agree to some degree but I also know that sometimes it has been shown that when a hero crosses that path and kills their villain everyone turns their backs on them and gives up on them because while maybe no one would’ve cared if all might killed one for all I know and have seen people forshaken Batman for ending joker
It seems that you're aligned with a Utlilitarian approach to Herosim. Which is fine, but I feel like you misunderstood who Batman is. I believe that Heroes should not be executioners due to a belief that anyone can be redeemed. Spider-Man and Batman value human life so much that they were only pushed to certain scenarios due to circumstances. For instance, Batman was willing to kill Darksied because who was a God that could never change. Other than that, Batmans no kill rule isn't foolish, it come from compassion and his radical heroism/trauma. However, Batman won't lose sleep if someone Kills the Joker. Batman is scrict about percicsley because he has to keep himself in check since he is also a damaged person. This conflict is why I find Batman stories so Interesting.
If he's willing to kill Darkside he should be willing to kill a clown just saying just because the joker "wins" in the end don't mean shit nobody would hate Batman if he did so the City would probably Cheer if he did so why wouldn't he and another thing why stop someone else from doing it would he stop a cop from shooting him if he had no choice? Or a random civilian? It makes no sense.
@@jfoster8624 Because if he kills Joker, he won't stop killing. He'll go further. He'll kill anyone who disagrees with him like the cops and his friends. Look at Injustice Superman. That is a good example on why you should not kill.
@@jfoster8624 I also imagine it's because he wouldn't be able to work with Jim Gordon, as Gordon would instantly cut ties with Batman the minute he killed someone like Joker, and as a result he would hunt Batman down
@@star_wars_nerd8.258 but like why would Gordon do that he knows first hand the type of terror joker brings yes he would have no choice but to "hunt" Batman but that doesn't mean they would automatically be enemies I'd never capture Batman I'd always let him get away not like Batman doesn't already do that anyways.
@@jfoster8624 Because Batman wouldn't be working by the book, as he would be playing Judge, Jury and Executioner, rather than bringing the villains in and allowing the courts to decide their fates.
2:20 might be the first tike I heard you miss a point. He meant if he could kill the Joker, why stop at the Joker? He'd go on to killing every villain. If you turn a square into a triangle the angles become triangular. Morals and foundations need to be firm. A slight change is the whole change. Nothing slight about it. You can't go left and right at the same time.
I think someone important to look at is Vash the Stampede, even tho it would be absolutely better for a man of his skill to kill them off, he choses to save everyone even the bad guys. Even struggles to kill the man that asks him to over letting two friends die. Even becomes broken when he fails to save a sniper only to watch them off themselves
Carnage is way worse than joker for the sheer fact as jokers just a man with mental issues, carnage has super strength, agility, a healing factor, and can straight up ruin more people in one night then joker could after a week of planning and getting everything together and building all the machines and hiring the henchman and mentally abusing Harley Quinn and all that junk
I think his reason for saying joke is more dangerous than carnage isn't about who kill more faster than other but comes down to the fact that carnage kills but the joke breaks and I don't mean physically I mean mentally like almost everything joke has done in his life is to try and break batman
He completely broke harley quinn just so she can break out of prison and made her believe that he loves her when in reality he doesn't give a rat ass about her
In the injustice universe the joke broke superman something no one has ever done before he did it in like three days
But carnage only really cares about causing death and destruction
But joke wants to show the whole world that everyone can become just like him and that all it's takes is one bad day
Joker is a person in DC who is so insane that he’s Super Sane. He knows he exists in a fictional world and that no one exists and that whatever he does doesn’t matter. That’s why Joker does the things he does. He’s a million times worse than Carnage
Carnage is a serial killer and can really only be one place at a time
Joker is a terrorist who can bomb city blocks from across the country
You’ve never read a Batman comic have you? Joker is legitimately a world ending threat sometimes…
@@bruv.2214 name a comic villain that isn't a world ending threat sometimes. I'm sure carnage has gotten his own god mode power up once or twice.
"All the people I've murdered, by letting you live"-batman
Although I agree with some points but it's not all batman fault sometimes it just lazy writing on the writers part but also on the Gotham's law like why tf are the judges not putting joker on the death penalty i know he's insane and can't be imprisoned lawfully but dude he's joker he can end the multiverse with enough prep time just make one exception lol
Gotham is spectacularly corrupt, people profit of the death the Joker causes
Funny thing is he doesn't fall into the category for the insanity plea
Again people forget batman is bruce wayne, a rich, influential man. he could change how his justice system works legally.
@@AlphaNinjaFTW1 how can one man change an entire justice system by himself
@@sukuna6630 MONEY. If you want to change the corrupt system back the people who you think should replace them. Unlike normal people, bruce wayne can afford entire campaigns and has enough influence to effect voters. Also if you are willing to illegal go on your streets and beat the shit out people than you should be willing to lobby for a better system.
Another big difference is Cletus was supposed to get the Chair but it failed. Joker has never once gotten the chair
nah, batman knows that being judge jury and executioner is way too much power for one man to have , so he only apprehends the criminals. He really is the best hero there is. What I don't understand is how the hell has the entire country not decided to kill the criminals of Gotham. Still Batman is the best superhero there is because he knows that there has to be limits and he draws them.
Don’t forget that in justice league(animated series) Batman told Clark to cry him a river when he refused to help darkseid. He listed every single thing he did, INCLUDING making Superman a weapon but he didn’t care
That whole scene was bullshit. It was hilarious that Superman was almost immediately proved right. Like people use that clip so much as an example of Batman's greatness, but neglect the fact that his self righteous bs gets the justice league played by one of the most duplicitous entities in the multiverse. It also nearly leads to their deaths as well, especially superman's.
That just proves Batman is just a loud ignorant because he was not only wrong but also tried to act like he was smart.
@@charleschiemekaekeogu6908 he was smart Superman did get played and was used by the enemy he had to action
Bruce still even tried to stop Clark from killing him in that episode. Though Clark still is to blame for not Killing him after there last battle.
@Joshua Agbettor
To be fair, both Clark and Bruce had valid points. Clark was right not to trust Daekseid, but Bruce was also right in that, on the off chance it wasn't a trap, they needed to stop Brainiac since, given his tendency to steal others' knowledge, an evil AI with New God tech would be bad. Plus, I think it was less trying to stop Clark from killing Darkseid and more, "bro, the space station's going to self destruct we gotta go!"
So basically you kill if u have to. With kraven he wasn't a threat anymore but joker is still continuing to be one. It's not about " if I kill you. You win " type deal. It's about ending the threat whether they surrender an stop for good or they have to be killed
Hold up hold up. If I recall Joker was once arrested and kept in prison for about 7 years. But he was never given the death penalty for everything he did. Why?
Gotham doesn't have the death penalty.
@@viridityone3106 And everyone in the city wonders why the Joker keeps escaping and adding a lot more numbers to the death count each time
"All i hear is you have no self-control"
Well, yeah. That's the point.
My first thought is superman - one time in the comics when he actually killed a villain he gave up his powers because he believed he had failed as a hero,that he was supposed to be an inspiration for people to NOT kill,to forgive and try to be better people ,that it was better to talk than fight ,If superman killed all his villains he'd be proving Lex Luther right that superman was a threat and not someone to be trusted,someone they needed to get rid of,i personally feel as long as someone can be contained they should be but if they break out then a court of law can weigh the death penalty
This is why I love the invincible comics so much. Killing is a big part in those comics and we see the reasons and consequences of killing. And when Mark starts killing people it is seen as a danger that he's going down a bad path like his father.
People have different reasons for killing and its not always clear weather those reasons are correct or not, even if they seem to be for the greater good.
I feel like Batman’s No Kill Rule comes from the fact that his father was a doctor
Doctors actually have a kind oath(Hippocratic Oath-an updated version) that has a very specific no kill rule
Him killing would somewhat mean rejecting what his father stood for(He has no idea whether Thomas Wayne would be ok with killing since some doctors are very extreme about that stuff)
if Batm,an said that i'd be okay with it
if he said 'look I only put on the cape to save people a certain way' great.
but thats not what he says
he says 'if i kill one person then i'll kill everyone' he says 'if you kill a killer then the number of killers doesn't change' he says stuff like that that is meant to sound deep and cool and wise but ultimately just says 'this guy is an idiot and also should not be in a profession where he throws people off buildings'
Destiny 2 had a brilliant cutscene in one of its previous seasons that perfectly illustrated why sometimes it’s necessary to kill. “Mercy for an enemy cannot come at the cost of mercy for their victims.” Basically in that in showing mercy, you should consider if that will sue more harm to the people that person can harm.
I do love Batman and I think that he should stick by his code… but he shouldn’t “save” Joker ever from those willing to do what he can’t.
All the people I’ve murdered, by letting you live.
- Batman The Dark Knight Returns
The thing with Carnage is, people (including Spider-Man) HAVE tried to kill him plenty of times. He’s just so busted that it’s pretty much impossible.
Dude got ripped in half and thrown into space and survived. Nothing Peter can do is gonna kill him.
When your sole mission is to kill villains then you aren’t a hero. You are the punisher.
Maybe Frank had a point but was too nutty to actually make it work.
Batman has always been on the edge of insanity and some say he already is, he refuses to kill because he's afraid that he'll a mass murdering monster. Joker always tells us this and has always been the driving force of the two's relationship.
It's not like joker is hard to put down like carnage who is invincible to most ways of damage and is physically superior in every way to the superhero.
Yh honestly you could argue that Joker has already won. Purely because Batman trying to honour his code directly prevents justice from being served. He's as fragile as his idea of justice and his dynamic with Joker represents that. He can aprehend him as many times as he likes, but it never sticks. And Batman can't rid himself of the joker, because his entirely hero identity revolves around his insane disciplind and planning. This is mainly to make up for his mental fragility born from trauma. It seems more and more ironic given Batman's prep time feats.
@@joshuaagbettor5610 joker has lost cause he wants to corrupt Batman and believes he can make him snap and become like him
Bat man's method for killing and his explanation is so misunderstood. When he says he will keep killing, hes saying it the vain of "you cant put the tooth paste back in the vase." The moment he does it, he will ALWAYS have that excuse. He can never change the fact he killed someone, which makes doing it easier as you've already done it before. No matter what, something will ALWAYS be easier the second time around. It doesnt matter who you are, its just humam nature. And killing the joker would only make the first time more enjoyable which would make a second time SO much easier.
Sorry but He sucks, he doesn’t care bout nothing until something bad happens to him or his family instead of the people he “protects”
So the basis of it is basically:
Kill 1 person to spare thousands or
Spare 1 person & doom thousands if not more.
Every now n then a villain MIGHT spare someone but you don't see them going around not catching body after body.
So in the same breathe why should a hero get traumatized thinking if he'll kill villain after villain? They're a hero, hopefully they can judge who is a threat that they'll waste time chasing weekly, or if it's a threat that needs to be "handled".
0:27 because he knows he might not be able to stop himself he might have low self control when it comes to stopping himself after he starts killing but he knows he does which is why he doesn’t
I've always wondered why when joker goes to arkham they don't kill him on electric chair or something for his crimes.
I mean I know that he is still alive because of his popularity as a character but in DC universe, why is he still alive?
I mean it's not like the government can't sentence him to death, several Batman villains were taken to the suicide squad so it's not like the government doesn't know about them
Joker is legally insane and thus can't legally be held accountable for his actions, so instead of sentencing him to death they have to send him to an asylum for rehabilitation. Once the doctors deem him to be rehabilitated, they have to let him go. Half the time that's actually how criminals get out of Arkham instead of breaking out, then they either relapse or are revealed to be lying.
Basically hes to insane to stand trialeven though the insanity plea would be save him the first time around if he kept breaking out and killing people they would make an exception and kill him but in DC the insanity plea is a get out of jail free card
@@lukegraham1204 the thing is insanity pleas have limits, 1000+ deaths and constant escapes would exceed those limits. Also unless the prosecution is shit, you could argue joker isn't insane. Like sure he does crazy stuff, but with a very clear understanding of what he is doing, how wrong it is and how it effects people.
@@AlphaNinjaFTW1 true, I guess that's the point where the writers stop taking realism into account.
To me a hero does what’s needed regardless of if it’s right or wrong. For example sonic. In the black knights, if he stopped King Arthur, then the kingdom of Camelot would fall and sonic didn’t care.
To quote him in the sacred rings, “It’s not about right or wrong for me, I just got to do what I got to do”
Sonic has a belief system of freedom. He wants everyone to have the freedom to do what they want, but he is also free to stop anyone who tries to do bad. He may not kill the bad guy according to his beliefs, but sonic always steps up for the people at any time, any when, any where. He asks no questions, he just does it. And that’s admirable
I think the difference between Batman and sonic is that sonic operates kind of like flash. He always gives his enemies the chance to reform, but ONLY after they stop being a threat/the threat is neutralized. And he genuinely believes in his friends enough so that if he were to fail, they’ll be able to handle the situation in his absence. He doesn’t work alone and he isn’t irresponsible. He’s always ready to make up for any mistakes he does and in IDW, eggman quite nearly did reform if it wasn’t for some other idiot turning him back to evil
But if batman killed joker, joker WOULD actually win. A great example is the story injustice where superman kills the Joker. Superman while in the beginning was still being his normal self, superman started to kill more and more criminals for petty crimes and justified it as "for justice and peace." Superman from being a symbol of peace and hope, became a dictator and ruled metropolis and soon the world with a iron fist with fear. Another example would be red hood. Red hood also started killing villains left and right be it gangsters, mafia leaders or killers, no second chances were given. Red hood even almost ended up being a villain. So in conclusion, killing joker or any villain could break a hero.
Except that version of supes was isolated from Bruce. He mostly arrested criminals and put them in prison. He even responsible for saving the earth from apokolips invasion. He was force into war with Bruce who was desperate enough to use the gods and even magic wild card against him. The only time when I can think supes killed discriminately was the joker gang in which they were backing harlequin the one responsible for the destruction of his city. And praising the joker who caused all this. And Shazam but that was the result of 5 years fighting a war against Bruce and all he could throw at him
After the bat family is set up he could just kill himself. It's shown many times that joker only lives for Bats. Even when he messes with the bat family it's all for batman. So if batman isn't around joker most of the time will disappear too leaving the other villains to the bat family.
@@neubaufahrzeug9339 ya but batman can't just leave gothem too. Just because if he left joker will stop doesn't mean other villains won't stop. Poison ivy, penguin, black mask, Mr freeze and calender man are great examples of not being motivated by batman
@@chuenjinyang4513 This is after setting up the bat family. If he has nightwing, oracle, red robin, damian, red hood, gotham girl, the signal, and batwing fighting crime then all that's left is to walk up to joker demask and shoot himself in the head ruining jokers game breaking him.
@@TheOneWhoShushes I don't know if you've realized this yet but harley quinn isn't a villan, she hasn't been for a while. She is supposed to be a victim of joker's charm and manipulation, she isn't a bad person she's just really messed up. Also superman used technology to enslave people and also used villans such as bane as goons, which is much worse than saving harley quinn.
What people don't get is marvel and dc are telling different stories, dc is about gods trying to live amongst people. Marvel is about regular people given immense powers and struggling with the responsibilities of it, that's just a basic summarization so se storylines from both might deviate. My point is if I was immensely powerful then I would have the right to keep myself in check, we see Spider-Man struggle with this a lot throughout his storylines. But people like superman and batman who have lived long lives of discipline and responsibility, can't allow themselves to kill others because they aren't human they are observers. It's the same reason that portrayal of gods always seem annoying because they just smite whoever they want and do anything. They're gods amongst men and therefore have the responsibility to keep themselves in check.
What if Batman had to choose between killing Joker and saving innocent people? The fact that I don't know which choice he'd make just proves he can't be depended on.
I agree with the authors and writers when they say Batman doesn’t kill because he would have zero self control after that, but I hate it when other authors and writers make the reason as why Batman doesn’t just end the jokers life is because “hE WoUld WiN” like that sounds downright petty as hell, that the reason you don’t want to end joker is so that he wouldn’t have the last laugh wow that is real petty.
A Hero by definition is someone who is admired for their noble/righteous qualities.
That could include someone not killing someone else even if it is the best outcome for the most people
Sounds more like being self-righteous.
Remember that time batman killed the joker and then proceeded to become the batman who laughs and bring the entire multiverse to its knees?
Facts
But the difference between that and this is that joker was desperate at that point and wanted Batman to kill him and he just went and wreaked havoc all over Gotham and recreated a scene where Batman lost his parents in front of a little girl and jokerfied her after all just to make batman snap and kill as the last resort as you could he had his worst toxin in his heart that turned the Batman into the new joker.
don’t forget the gas joker released on city in his dying moments it literally fuck Batman’s mind so yeah
Bruh that is superior Spiderman which was when Otto Octavius took control of Peter's body...
Batmans whole deal is that he is crazy. Batman is just as crazy as the villains be fighting. He is obsessed with justice and vengence.
He simply can't do it. Not that he's not willing, but his mental condition is like an achor or weight around his neck.
He simply can't because he is forced to. It's an impluse. It's ingrained in his soul.
Like how the riddler can't stop leaving clues. He is absolutely compelled to beat batman on a mental level. Through his plans and riddles.
The joke wants to have more "fun" with batman.
Posion ivy has her plants.
Batman is in an insane person, but he's just on the side of the angels is all.
I will always believe lethal justice is necessary.
Even in the latest movie, Spiderman was ready to kill Green Goblin. The only thing that prevented him was ironically Spiderman himself (The Toby McGuire one). And even Toby's Spiderman killed Venom in his universe.
And also as far as new Goblin and Spider-Man knew in that movie turning Sandman into glass was most likely going to kill him but just happened to have not too
Carnage is the easiest "Just kill him" decision ever, like he's already an escaped death row inmate so honestly your just doing the government's job for them, shit they should pay whoever does the job a large sum at this point. Batman is a bit tricky and by a bit tricky I mean they solved this delema in Batman begins "I won't kill you... but that doesn't mean I have to save you." so just let Damian or whatever that edgy Robin with the sword's name is go ham on the joker then have Jason and Barbara have a "murder rules" talk with him after.
The thing with carnage is that you can kill Cletus but killing Carnage is not that easy and it has been proven multiple times.
At times like this I think about Mark from Invincible and the guilt he'd use to feel when he had to take a life. He always wished there was a better way and regretted not finding one😔
That's why Wildstorm is the best they're as willing to kill as Marvel but also understand the need for self control like Dc.
“All I hear is you have no self control” THAT MF PART
him not having self control is what makes him my favorite hero. this man is 1 kill away from being a universal threat. that makes him so much more interesting than any other hero imo.
As someone who still has the dream to become a hero I kinda agree. I believe a hero should save others first and foremost, if there is a train barreling towards a family on your left and a family on your right that's about to be shot by the guy you were just fighting then it's the heroes job to save both parties, when you put on that mask or suit your saying to the world "I will be there when you need me most, I will save you all". Yeah sure there's gonna be moments when you can't save everyone but a heroes primary goal is to preserve life not take it that's why for better or worse I agree with Batman to an extent. I don't think heroes or any person should be allowed to choose when someone should die that's for fate or whatever you believe in to decide. But if a joker like threat we're to appear yeah sure maybe once after he broke out would a I put him back in, but if he were to do it again I'm bringing him back with his neck crushed or completely paralyzed cause immobilizing someone is also an option but most people always think of the nuclear option, killing
If you want to be a true hero you need to put down all threats especially people who are constantly ignoring the law like kingpin. When Spiderman only decided to kill kingpin if aunt may died was the biggest proof of hypocrisy ever because how many other people has the kingpin killed either directly or indirectly. Were the other deaths by his hand not enough to make spiderman want to kill him? Were the other deaths not good enough to condemn him to death simply because those people weren't loved by someone with superpowers?
@@alchemist0019Funny how you say this, but there are also many people who want him dead.
Most people who wants Kingpin dead is his rival and enemies, most people forgot if Kingpin is dead, somebody that is equal or even worse is just gonna take his spot.
I’d say that Batman acknowledging his lack of self control is why I’d respect him so much as hero. He knows where he is in the head, the first time is all it takes to get hooked. It’s like an addiction; if you know you can’t stop, then don’t start. Him recognizing his humanity and his flaws adds to his character and doesn’t detract.
Ok if batman knows if he kills once he will go on a never ending rampage like his villains then maybe he shouldn't be a hero in the first place
@@jmc5661then who's gonna be the person to protect Gotham? Cause none of the other main heroes patrol Gotham besides the bat family and almost none of them are really capable of protecting the city as well as batman did
@@paperplanez104 Jason Todd can do what batman can do plus do what he can't which is kill end of discussion
@@paperplanez104 i dunno dude.
If there was a guy out there who would go on a mass rampage if he killed on person.... maybe he shouldnt be in a profession where he throws people off roof tops.
like it's straight up only plot armour that he doesn't have a huge body count just by accident with hw may people he fights.
Spiderman is willing to do whatever it takes to protect the many. Batman let's the killer live and many die.
Sometimes being a hero isn't enouph. Sometimes the law gets in the way of saving people. Sometimes you must break the law to do what is best for everyone. And you probably will be hated and treated like a villain for doing so. Vigilanteism Sometimes is the only way.
I think when it comes to Batman, it is less about morality, and more about keeping himself on a leash. He is afraid that if he kills someone, with his mental state being the hot garbage fire tossed into a volcano that it is, that he will do it again, and again, and again. Remember when he got the Moebius chair? He left a group of thieves in the ARCTIC. I see your points and I agree, but it is a matter of restraint on his own broken self, than anything else.
I never saw Killing Joke like that. I always saw Batman and Joker laughing as an acknowledgment of the futility of Batman trying to help him because Joker fundamentally believes he’s too far gone.
The entire point was proving Joker wrong cuz it was getting that bad.
But you’re right. Batman being smart enough to understand that Joker is a monster makes that dynamic make no sense and Bats saying he has no self-control is a new perspective to that take I’ll have to consider.
That’s why the better stories are the ones where Joker hasn’t crossed that moral event horizon.
I love in comics when spider man fights carnage because you see him actively trying to kill him
cause Carnage is unkillable, you can go all out as hard as you want knowing it wont even matter in the end
He's not though
@@pizzatime4204 he literally took meter pole and smashed him on the head with it
killing villians is wrong, but it must only be used as a last resort.
The world of mha,has a rule against killing villains,its illegal
But it didn't stop all might from "killing afo" the first time,and no one blamed him for that
Because they know how dangerous the "demon king" is
And even if they wanted to do something,what could they?take in the symbol of peace because he killed the worst of the worst?
Batman's situation is no different, a lot less people care about him, and he's not necessarily the symbol of peace,thats superman
BUT he is still a well respected hero
And everyone knows how dangerous joker is
Honestly, people who defend batman's no kill rule, especially for joker
Are just insane
The reason why joker didnt die it because the writer want to milk him for content
Can we all agree that the joker with the carnage symbiote would just be plain terrifying.
Thanks for that nightmare fuel and I thought the batman who laughs when he first showed up was bad enough.
@@saorse5918 your welcome 😂
@@kylewhitfield449 nope I refuse that welcome take back :3
@@saorse5918 😂😂
It happened in a crossover story. Didn't work since they're apparantly incompatible with each other
I think the meaning behind the end of "The killing joke" with Joker telling the joke and Batman laughing with him, was symbolizing that deep down both of them are insane in a way.
As Bruce told wonder woman: "I'm a rich kid with issues....LOTS of issues."
On top of that the theory of people saying he killed Joker in that instant off screen, implies he DID finally push batman over the edge, and Batman had to take him out. Realizing finally have a joker was too far gone to be saved
The whole point of aang”s story is that it’s not about him becoming the avatar
It’s about him being the last Airbender
My 2 cents, heroes don't have to save everyone. There are people beyond saving, and if they die to their own actions and nobody else dies with them, then the heroes not obligated to save them the worse they are, like if it's Catwoman, she's petty burglar tops, save her, but if it's joker, don't bother. It's like saying Captain America should save Hitler, it's a bad argument, some people don't deserve life. That's horrible to say, but i mean again, some of these villains have higher body counts than literally army's combined, that's not worth saving. It's literally a trolly problem at that point, 1 person for millions and billions. I get your point and do agree that hunting them down to kill is crossing a line, but if they pull a bomb and it's stuck on them, throw them into the sky and watch the dirty fireworks fly for super villains like the one's mentioned in video.
Honestly? I don't think batman should be the one to kill the joker, because that's exactly what Joker wants. Joker has this idealized idea of how he'd like to go out, at batman's hands. Instead it should be some random gothamite nobody that's out for revenge. then Joker would die both sad and mad over the fact that he got taken out by some random nobody.
better yet if it's some chubby mom-type wearing curlers and a mumu who's wielding a sniper rifle from a rooftop, going: "this is for my husband and children that you murdered, you son of a b***h!" before nailing him in the head. and then she does down to drag the joker off to get cremated or something, so that nobody can revive him in the lazusus pits or something like that.
Joker's end should be like it was in Batman Beyond, someone laughing at his face making fun of him and proving that he's just some loser with a gimmick.
I hear you what you're saying. And this isn't a counter argument, this is another thing to discuss about. Maybe the justice system or jails/prisons need better security or better measures. Cuz I've heard this argument stated like this "well you stop one person and he gets out and kills 10 more of your responsible for those type of deaths, you should have just ended the one person and save those 10 people" I just think like shouldn't they been locked up shouldn't the people that had him locked up do a better job
Even though Spider-man is willing to kill he holds back so much and doesn’t realize it Spider-Man is as strong or actually even stronger than the thing
Here’s my philosophy:
Heroes should have the right to do what needs to be done, including killing the villains. However, they must learn the meaning and consequences of their actions and be ready for them. It’s not so black and white to say heroes should or shouldn’t kill villains.
I’ll use TFP Optimus Prime as an example: On many occasions, he could’ve easily killed Megatron or any other Decepticon on the spot. He can also be used and fueled by emotions at times, bringing him to a state where he almost always tried to kill.
However, he has the resolve to restrain the temptation to kill. He knows what’ll happen if his enemies die and seeks to obtain the most ideal outcome for all sides, good and evil.
All in all, a hero that kills their villains must ensure their mind is as strong, if not stronger than their body. Murder is a complex topic and emotions surrounding it are even more so.
I would say it depends on which version of the Joker you are talking about and the fact that Gotham needs a death penalty as well as other cities, but especially Gotham. If we are talking about the Joker who's all for theatrics, gassing people, robbing banks, without killing people. Then no he should't be killed but definitely heavily guard so he won't create any more disturbances. If the Joker does kill that is for the laws to decide his crimes, if the law is too corrupt then have someone who 1. Believes killing criminals is necessary 2. Not motivated by revenge or anger= Maybe the Punisher or some other anti-hero to kill the Joker. It doesn't have to be Batman that does the deed. Cause once he does do it he's falling into that dark home and never coming back.