Should Batman just kill the Joker?

Looking at the age-old question: hey, shouldn't Batman just kill the Joker at this point?

Follow Perch at...

#ComicBooks #TopComics #GraphicNovels

[Zapzel]

I always reply that “Why Batman though? Why not anyone else even a random person.” I think there so much focus is towards these two characters that we don’t see the wider scope of the setting. A simple rando could’ve killed the joker while he locked in prison or being escorted to Arkham.

[Eyrrll]

I just kind of accept that the comic publishers need reoccurring villains in order to survive. Just like I have to accept that most heroes (if real) would spend about half of their heroic careers in a hospital, healing from cumulative injuries.

[FrankMillersEvilHat]

I think part of the problem is since the 70s they have to have a villain kill people. It sort of made sense back in the 60s he didn't just kill them because the villains just stole stuff and tied up Batman and Robin.

It is silly how Joker just keeps getting away with it. I am shocked it hasn't gotten to the point Joker is in a room of kids he killed shouting "Batman if you kill me your just bad as me!" and Batman going "He is right if I kill him I will just be as bad!" It is so goofy.I sorta get why the Shadow rarely had a villain return after 3 appearances XD

[drewtheunspoken]

I think it's a pointless question. It's an ongoing narrative with trademarked characters who sell books. Batman will never definitively stop the Joker and the Joker is never going to kill Batman. This is one of those areas where realism would kill your franchise. Another question would be why are Gotham's correctional facilities still used when they've shown that they are not secure, no matter what you do. Once you start asking those questions you start drawing attention to all the other ways that superheroes don't work. Not a single superhero will ever have a clear, concise final victory. Just as the villains will never ultimately win. Following that path of thinking means trying to justify everything, which leads to deconstruction, which brings us to where we are now.

[nebezial]

always found this to be a fun thing to discuss. actually had a lot of fun with that in harleen through my own approach to harvey dent

[davidgusquiloor]

DC would never allow it.
But if Captain Marvel/Shazam managed to get the death Sentence to Mr. Mind for his crimes against humanity, the Batman should find a way to make the courts of Gotham sentence the Joker.

[brianbordon]

They need to make Joker less of a murderer and also use him sparingly.

[bryanrickard]

I would really like to see a storyline that Jack's this idea where Bruce is advocating for the death penalty

[Deephouse_Gent]

I can accept Batman's devotion to his personal vow not to kill or to hold all life sacred or whatever, but here's my thing: there has to be a bunch of fed-up Gotham PD guys who are tired of having to deal with a 10-to-30 person mass slaughter every time Joker breaks out and hits the street. An insanity plea can only go so far. And you're telling me that there isn't a secret band of private citizens somewhere, or the Court of Owls or whoever, that wouldn't feel better with such an unpredictable element removed from the playing field? The fact that no one has put this guy out of his misery makes the whole Batman/Joker scenario completely unrealistic. No way that any city government would abide having a known mass murderer taking up residence. So yeah, even if Batman himself would never stoop to killing Joker, some damn body in Gotham certainly would. And just because Batman would never kill Joker doesn't mean that he shouldn't permanently cripple him. Back in the day, Marvel's Daredevil once dropped Bullseye from an extremely high altitude, crippling him and removing him from the playing field for a good while. Has it never occurred to Batman or Red Hood or Huntress or somebody to do exactly that with Joker? Bottom line, there is no plausible scenario that would allow such a toxic, dangerous, unbalanced menace to consistently get a pass after committing mass murder. I totally get that comics are not real life, but damn, you have to recognize the total ridiculousness of this Joker scenario. No way would anyone keep locking him up for 'treatment' after the heinous acts he repeatedly commits.

[Batwing_Confetti]

At the bare minimum, I think there needs to be some measurable narrative catharsis when The Joker DOES lose, even if it’s not him being killed it’s still important to these kinds of stories. It should be satisfying seeing his plans go up in smoke, or having his enormous ego dealt some humiliating blow (take the BTAS episode “Joker’s Favor” for a masterclass example on how to perfectly end a Joker story) rather than slapping him on the wrist with just the bandaid fix of sending him to Arkham which he knows fully well won’t stick anyways.

As much as I respect Batman’s adamant unwillingness to kill, it’s also frustrating to see the bitter fruits that morality bears him and it sort of shows the hand of the writer when he’s contrived into these trolley problem situations constantly where doubling down on that makes no sense beyond preserving a status quo. It’s sickening to see Batman himself never get a meaningful win against his arch enemy, who’s treated as untouchable no matter what the outcome of their fight is.

Batman’s “no kill” rule isn’t good enough on its own if writers are unwilling to showcase any examples where taking the high road DOES pay off, at least in contrast to how Joker does things. Maybe Joker should be snared in a scenario where the only person who can bail him out of a jam is a henchmen he frivolously killed off, or maybe some street thug ends up paying it forward back to Batman by extending the hand of mercy he once showed him. Something like that, imo, would be far more appealing than the same retread of this stale, cynical corporate formula for a recurring villain to exist at large in perpetuity.

[tednolan]

I would take a middle line here because time in comics is so screwed up. It's like that R.A. Lafferty story:

_"But when you try to compress a hundred thousand years of history into six thousand years, something has to give. When you try to compress a mill
ion years, it becomes dangerous. An involuted number series, particularly when applied to the spate of years, becomes a tightly coiled spring of
primordial spring-steel. When it recoils, look out! There comes the revenge of things left out.

"Were there eight kings of the name of Henry in England, or were there eighty? Never mind: someday it will be recorded that there was only one, a
nd the attributes of all of them will be combined into his compressed and consensus story._

In our world, Batman and the Joker have been mixing it up for 70 years. In Batman's world.. how long? I mean there's already a history there, and they can remember any particular past incident they need for the current plot, but for Batman it's only been ten years at the most that he's been in this cycle.

[RollingDodge]

I would set it up to the Joker being immune to poison (which I think is), and I would make it that even if they gave him the death penalty it wouldn't work, (unless they did this already).

[tvesrb]

The Closer Look laid this out wonderfully in his video about Snyder not understanding Batman. In it, he establishes what he believes to be the 4 essential qualities of the character. Battle prowess, intelligence, resolve and integrity. Not killing is a key component of his integrity. From a narrative standpoint, it's much more compelling to have it tested than to have him alter it for convenience.

If they want bodies and blood, they can go read/watch Punisher, Red Hood, etc.

[cha]

“You know,
You and that giggling idiot
deserve each other.”
(Punisher vs Batman)

[SamuraiMotoko]

This is what happen when you have this character dragging that most history with out going anywhere really.
If the joker showed just twice and stayed in Arkham, then wouldn't be a problem.
But they show up all the time because they sell products and are popular

[willadkins]

The argument ultimately doesn’t matter since Joker will just comeback either through resurrection or reboot.

[Bolbi]

Batman Under the Red Hood gives a great explanation for why Batman doesn’t kill

[Evergladez]

I think it would be better to have an inmate "off" the joker, it would be a good case study to see how batman takes it, a situation where it's impossible to get justice since the culprit is already in custody.

Also in general it would be big to retire the character batman vs joker is timeless but at the same time it is getting stale. There's ways to have the joker's presence felt long after he's gone such as with punchline or a new unrelated criminal that batman sees aspects of the joker in them.

[empyreanvole]

"Batman has a coterie of villains'. Do YOU Have a coterie of supervillains?"

[JohnSmith-dshd]

Forget Batman, there are countless influential and powerful characters in the DC universe who aren’t good guys but would definitely see Joker as a chaotic, problematic maniac. Why hasn’t Lex Luther, Vandal Savage, or Black Mask put a hit out on the Joker