Poll: If you were a superhero would you kill criminals?
- Thread starter rossatdi
- Start date
Recommended Videos
When one makes a Poll with your own opinions already decided and doesn't seriously intend to further real debate concerning the issues discussed (even going so far as to insult the people who disagrees with oneself), I have to suspect the motives of the original poster.
From the very beginning, in the opening posts, the thread OP expressly stated that he already loaded the poll in his eyes: The first two options were "Evil" and the last three were "Good."
I've already touched on moral issues regarding killing and letting live before in the Escapist Forum, but I'm reluctant to have to restate my position. I'd honestly rather just copy/paste.
Comics writers are infamous for having bad habits with regards to morality. They tend to write based on their own personal moral biases and treat all others with disdain. Iron Man started out simply conservative but, through the decades, more and more liberal writers mutated his character into something almost villainous. Because they dislike the political viewpoints he's supposed to represent. And, more often than not, writers of any political bent are content to avoid thinking very hard about what they're criticizing, they merely take aim at their political strawmen [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawmanPolitical] and pat themselves on the back for sticking it to those Damn Dirty Hippies/Commies/Fundamentalists/Neocons/Americans/French/Muslims/Jews/Westerners/
People-Who-Dare-To-Be-So-Foolish-As-To-Believe-Differently-From-My-Inherently-Superior-Ways.
Dungeons and Dragons (pre-4th Edition) was notorious for having a screwy and overly-categorical view of morality, but even the Law-Chaos/Good-Evil 3x3 grid was more subtle than most strongly-opinioned takes on right and wrong. It even acknowledged that, in a medieval-type society, good people often had to kill in order to do the "right thing," which was occasionally as simple as protecting a helpless village from being slaughtered by bandits. (A situation that, unfortunately, is not completely unrealistic in certain parts of the modern world today. See: War-torn undeveloped countries.)
To kill "only in extreme cases" is vague and does not state outright an example of an "extreme case." Presumably, such a scenario would be more dire than simply killing a rapist, drug dealer, or murderer (in all three cases, the offender is someone whose actions either violate most societies' deepest mores or ruthlessly exploit and victimize large numbers of people in the long run), but less dire than actually killing to protect another person's life (which, logically speaking, would mean killing either a murderer or a mere attempted murderer while he's caught in the act). But even then, the Thread OP would agree that "in extreme cases" it would not be inherently evil.
Both views regarding this issue, "vigilante justice" vs. "killing is always wrong," are built on mostly sound perspectives. Some people have difficulty expressing why their views are solid, but believe it or not they are.
To believe that killing to prevent a wrongdoing is to acknowledge the simplest, most brutal truth of the human condition that humans are capable of inflicting terrible evils on their fellow beings if they believe that they will not be punished or, just as bad, if they believe the punishment is tolerable. Most killers working under a mass murderer's regime are perfectly willing to kill innocent people or critics of their dictator's policies because the dominant power in the country is the one they represent and, thus, they will not be punished--indeed, they will be rewarded. And if the regime is toppled by revolution or by action from another state (or multi-state coalition), these killers (and who were often rapists, as there was no one to stop them) believe that they will not be punished because they were "merely following orders." This has happened many, many, many times over the past century alone.
There also remains the fact that when several states in the US placed a moratorium on the death penalty, the rate of violent and lethal crime rose on average in those states. For one simple, easy to understand, painfully logical reason: People are more willing to go to prison than be executed. Thus, when the law chooses not to execute those who commit crimes (of a particular severity), the law is weakening the discouragement of these very crimes. (How this applies to vigilante heroes and superheroes is another matter. Suffice to say: If people believe the law to be insufficient in protecting them, they will often take measures to protect themselves. The vigilante superhero is a fictionalized extension of this phenomenon.)
To repeat: The threat of death is a more effective deterrent to actions than the threat of imprisonment or other transient punishments. This is not merely a matter of law, in societies that hold themselves apart from, say, the law of common society, they are just as willing to execute those who transgress against them--even if said execution, by common law, makes them murderers. Even criminal society, from street gangs to organized crime, acknowledge the brutal truth that a human's fear of death is stronger than their fear of imprisonment. Many who disavow killing anyone who might do them or others harm is willfully ignoring this simple fact.
To insist that killing a killer would make one as bad or worse than the killer is to miss the point entirely. While it may seem unsavory or even offensive to "stoop" to the level of criminals who are willing to kill those who cross them, it is unwise to completely ignore the practical reasons to kill in response to (or to prevent) a sufficiently severe crime. To put it in the unfortunately more blunt manner: Even a criminal acknowledges such a simple reality, one that certain people refuse to. At their own risk. Either out of pride, arrogance, or sense of security. Be thankful, those who've lived in peaceful countries, that your personal convictions are not likely to be tested.
The reason someone might be willing to kill rapists, murderers, and drug dealers is the simple fact that if it is widely known that a certain action could bring about a sufficiently fierce reaction, that particular action is less likely to be committed. And it's very difficult not to sympathize with a parent killing a person attempting to rape their child, a person attempting to destroy their child's life and exploit said child, or a person who means to kill their child. I do not mean to use these scenarios as a means of inciting simple "protect the children" sympathies in favor of the argument, I am merely stating that, in the vast majority of these cases, people would be willing to sympathize with the killer and even agree with his or her decision. Peoples' beliefs and morals form the foundation from whence their society's laws emerge (or, in the case of autocratic governments, a dictator's morals or lack thereof), and if they believe that in this situation the killer was right then their laws, or at least their public coverage of the laws enacted in response to the killings, would be on the killer's side.
On the side of "killing is wrong, no matter what," this is an admirable, if difficult, belief to hold in a world as cruel and ruthless as our own. This is the logical extension of the various sympathies that indemnify murders and cause societies to require that murder be met with punishment. No one wants to lose a loved one. No one wants to die. The same goes for being stolen from, being lied to, having friends or families kidnapped. No one wants a company to willingly release harmful or dangerous products with the full knowledge that said products could hurt or kill those who use the product. No one wants to be enslaved. No one wants to be brutalized. No one wants to be raped.
As killing someone is the ultimate transgression against another human being in any society (let's set aside the fact that some societies were and are willing to treat foreigners or members of other belief systems as less-than-human for a second), it is natural that society would condemn this more than anything else. So much so that society would reinforce the message that killing is wrong with the greatest conviction. So great, in fact, that people would morally disagree with killing in any circumstance. Or almost any, as would be the case.
While I do not agree with the sentiment, I can understand why people would hold to it. It's a belief so deeply held that it's living proof that the morals behind it yet hold. A world where an entire society is willing to restrain itself from even killing a killer is world worth living in--where a society whose people, at least in this respect, hold to firm convictions rooted in compassion.
It's noble to believe in the sanctity of life. It's rooted in the same values that would lead someone to apparently contradict this ideal and be willing to kill those who kill. The former would want to prevent injustice with reason and by holding firm to their values so that the generations who follow will come to respect and uphold those same values. The latter would want to prevent injustice by punishing it, discouraging future injustice and establishing that their society is willing to uphold its values and keep their people safe. The root idea is the same: "To prevent injustice, to ensure our survival."
(And let's not get into an argument about what justice is, thanks.)
However, I dislike it when those who believe that all killing is wrong choose to belittle those who believe otherwise. To do so is to act not out of kindness or idealism but out of arrogance and complete disregard for the repeated realities of human history. That sort of pride is not nearly as noble as the beliefs one would claim to represent.
I also dislike it when the opposite happens, but that's generally not the case in this thread.
I am, of course, speaking to you, Rossatdi. To belittle those who would believe differently from yourself, in a thread and poll you apparently started primarily to reinforce your own beliefs, is not a noble thing to do.
Even if you believe that superheroes are something else entirely, that they are meant to be paragons of moral virtues unattainable in the real world, to presume all others would feel the same way and to insult everyone as "psychopaths" when your presumptions are not met is, I'll say it, being a poor sport. One of the reasons why Marvel managed to take a lot of DC's market share in the previous century was precisely because of their emphasis on being relatively realistic. With heroes readers could relate to reacting to situations in a manner they could both relate to (for the reality of it) as well as admire (for the superheroics of it).
Yes, Marvel's heroes are more willing to kill in general than DC's heroes. Then again, real people are generally more willing to kill than DC's heroes.
The Classical Heroes, who form the base of myth, legend, and folklore that the comicbook heroes attempt to surpass (super-surpass, even) were much more willing to kill than either. And their stories have lasted millennia because people admire them and look back fondly upon them. Even those you would find morally abhorrent are still heroes. Judging by their impact on human society over the past few thousand years, one could say that they are certainly more heroes than the squandered fictional inventions of the past century. (And no comic book fan could look at the greatest figures of the medium and not see them being squandered by their respective companies.)
Indeed, the Greek concept of "Hero" was originally not one with a moral value, merely a concept representing a person who was larger than life. Someone whose deeds were great and mighty, someone who people in a society admired and whose story would be told. Even if another society could possibly consider said hero a monster. Even if there were aspects of that hero's character that the Greeks, themselves, might find distasteful. (Hello, Achilles.)
Compared to this, the concept of the "superhero" is possibly less-lasting. Because it relies heavily on potentially transient societal values. And on characters whose own canonical representations are at the mercy of writers who might not always know what the hell they're doing with the assignment dropped in their lap.
Like it or not, the amoral concept of "Hero of Mighty Deeds" is a lasting one that still holds appeal in modern times--one that speaks to the core of every human being alive. One that still exists today, though some feel the need to append the prefix "Anti-" to it in order to appease their ideals.
But the idea still holds. Because people are both Good and Evil in equal measure, and as people we've mostly come to terms with that. And dealt with it as best we can.
...
tl;dr: This thread's a bit silly when you think about it.
From the very beginning, in the opening posts, the thread OP expressly stated that he already loaded the poll in his eyes: The first two options were "Evil" and the last three were "Good."
I've already touched on moral issues regarding killing and letting live before in the Escapist Forum, but I'm reluctant to have to restate my position. I'd honestly rather just copy/paste.
That takes care of the broad base of my perspective. Now I'll get a little more specific with regards to the issue at hand. Namely, Superheroes--to kill or not to kill?Dorian Cornelius Jasper said:
Comics writers are infamous for having bad habits with regards to morality. They tend to write based on their own personal moral biases and treat all others with disdain. Iron Man started out simply conservative but, through the decades, more and more liberal writers mutated his character into something almost villainous. Because they dislike the political viewpoints he's supposed to represent. And, more often than not, writers of any political bent are content to avoid thinking very hard about what they're criticizing, they merely take aim at their political strawmen [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawmanPolitical] and pat themselves on the back for sticking it to those Damn Dirty Hippies/Commies/Fundamentalists/Neocons/Americans/French/Muslims/Jews/Westerners/
People-Who-Dare-To-Be-So-Foolish-As-To-Believe-Differently-From-My-Inherently-Superior-Ways.
Dungeons and Dragons (pre-4th Edition) was notorious for having a screwy and overly-categorical view of morality, but even the Law-Chaos/Good-Evil 3x3 grid was more subtle than most strongly-opinioned takes on right and wrong. It even acknowledged that, in a medieval-type society, good people often had to kill in order to do the "right thing," which was occasionally as simple as protecting a helpless village from being slaughtered by bandits. (A situation that, unfortunately, is not completely unrealistic in certain parts of the modern world today. See: War-torn undeveloped countries.)
To kill "only in extreme cases" is vague and does not state outright an example of an "extreme case." Presumably, such a scenario would be more dire than simply killing a rapist, drug dealer, or murderer (in all three cases, the offender is someone whose actions either violate most societies' deepest mores or ruthlessly exploit and victimize large numbers of people in the long run), but less dire than actually killing to protect another person's life (which, logically speaking, would mean killing either a murderer or a mere attempted murderer while he's caught in the act). But even then, the Thread OP would agree that "in extreme cases" it would not be inherently evil.
Both views regarding this issue, "vigilante justice" vs. "killing is always wrong," are built on mostly sound perspectives. Some people have difficulty expressing why their views are solid, but believe it or not they are.
To believe that killing to prevent a wrongdoing is to acknowledge the simplest, most brutal truth of the human condition that humans are capable of inflicting terrible evils on their fellow beings if they believe that they will not be punished or, just as bad, if they believe the punishment is tolerable. Most killers working under a mass murderer's regime are perfectly willing to kill innocent people or critics of their dictator's policies because the dominant power in the country is the one they represent and, thus, they will not be punished--indeed, they will be rewarded. And if the regime is toppled by revolution or by action from another state (or multi-state coalition), these killers (and who were often rapists, as there was no one to stop them) believe that they will not be punished because they were "merely following orders." This has happened many, many, many times over the past century alone.
There also remains the fact that when several states in the US placed a moratorium on the death penalty, the rate of violent and lethal crime rose on average in those states. For one simple, easy to understand, painfully logical reason: People are more willing to go to prison than be executed. Thus, when the law chooses not to execute those who commit crimes (of a particular severity), the law is weakening the discouragement of these very crimes. (How this applies to vigilante heroes and superheroes is another matter. Suffice to say: If people believe the law to be insufficient in protecting them, they will often take measures to protect themselves. The vigilante superhero is a fictionalized extension of this phenomenon.)
To repeat: The threat of death is a more effective deterrent to actions than the threat of imprisonment or other transient punishments. This is not merely a matter of law, in societies that hold themselves apart from, say, the law of common society, they are just as willing to execute those who transgress against them--even if said execution, by common law, makes them murderers. Even criminal society, from street gangs to organized crime, acknowledge the brutal truth that a human's fear of death is stronger than their fear of imprisonment. Many who disavow killing anyone who might do them or others harm is willfully ignoring this simple fact.
To insist that killing a killer would make one as bad or worse than the killer is to miss the point entirely. While it may seem unsavory or even offensive to "stoop" to the level of criminals who are willing to kill those who cross them, it is unwise to completely ignore the practical reasons to kill in response to (or to prevent) a sufficiently severe crime. To put it in the unfortunately more blunt manner: Even a criminal acknowledges such a simple reality, one that certain people refuse to. At their own risk. Either out of pride, arrogance, or sense of security. Be thankful, those who've lived in peaceful countries, that your personal convictions are not likely to be tested.
The reason someone might be willing to kill rapists, murderers, and drug dealers is the simple fact that if it is widely known that a certain action could bring about a sufficiently fierce reaction, that particular action is less likely to be committed. And it's very difficult not to sympathize with a parent killing a person attempting to rape their child, a person attempting to destroy their child's life and exploit said child, or a person who means to kill their child. I do not mean to use these scenarios as a means of inciting simple "protect the children" sympathies in favor of the argument, I am merely stating that, in the vast majority of these cases, people would be willing to sympathize with the killer and even agree with his or her decision. Peoples' beliefs and morals form the foundation from whence their society's laws emerge (or, in the case of autocratic governments, a dictator's morals or lack thereof), and if they believe that in this situation the killer was right then their laws, or at least their public coverage of the laws enacted in response to the killings, would be on the killer's side.
On the side of "killing is wrong, no matter what," this is an admirable, if difficult, belief to hold in a world as cruel and ruthless as our own. This is the logical extension of the various sympathies that indemnify murders and cause societies to require that murder be met with punishment. No one wants to lose a loved one. No one wants to die. The same goes for being stolen from, being lied to, having friends or families kidnapped. No one wants a company to willingly release harmful or dangerous products with the full knowledge that said products could hurt or kill those who use the product. No one wants to be enslaved. No one wants to be brutalized. No one wants to be raped.
As killing someone is the ultimate transgression against another human being in any society (let's set aside the fact that some societies were and are willing to treat foreigners or members of other belief systems as less-than-human for a second), it is natural that society would condemn this more than anything else. So much so that society would reinforce the message that killing is wrong with the greatest conviction. So great, in fact, that people would morally disagree with killing in any circumstance. Or almost any, as would be the case.
While I do not agree with the sentiment, I can understand why people would hold to it. It's a belief so deeply held that it's living proof that the morals behind it yet hold. A world where an entire society is willing to restrain itself from even killing a killer is world worth living in--where a society whose people, at least in this respect, hold to firm convictions rooted in compassion.
It's noble to believe in the sanctity of life. It's rooted in the same values that would lead someone to apparently contradict this ideal and be willing to kill those who kill. The former would want to prevent injustice with reason and by holding firm to their values so that the generations who follow will come to respect and uphold those same values. The latter would want to prevent injustice by punishing it, discouraging future injustice and establishing that their society is willing to uphold its values and keep their people safe. The root idea is the same: "To prevent injustice, to ensure our survival."
(And let's not get into an argument about what justice is, thanks.)
However, I dislike it when those who believe that all killing is wrong choose to belittle those who believe otherwise. To do so is to act not out of kindness or idealism but out of arrogance and complete disregard for the repeated realities of human history. That sort of pride is not nearly as noble as the beliefs one would claim to represent.
I also dislike it when the opposite happens, but that's generally not the case in this thread.
I am, of course, speaking to you, Rossatdi. To belittle those who would believe differently from yourself, in a thread and poll you apparently started primarily to reinforce your own beliefs, is not a noble thing to do.
Even if you believe that superheroes are something else entirely, that they are meant to be paragons of moral virtues unattainable in the real world, to presume all others would feel the same way and to insult everyone as "psychopaths" when your presumptions are not met is, I'll say it, being a poor sport. One of the reasons why Marvel managed to take a lot of DC's market share in the previous century was precisely because of their emphasis on being relatively realistic. With heroes readers could relate to reacting to situations in a manner they could both relate to (for the reality of it) as well as admire (for the superheroics of it).
Yes, Marvel's heroes are more willing to kill in general than DC's heroes. Then again, real people are generally more willing to kill than DC's heroes.
The Classical Heroes, who form the base of myth, legend, and folklore that the comicbook heroes attempt to surpass (super-surpass, even) were much more willing to kill than either. And their stories have lasted millennia because people admire them and look back fondly upon them. Even those you would find morally abhorrent are still heroes. Judging by their impact on human society over the past few thousand years, one could say that they are certainly more heroes than the squandered fictional inventions of the past century. (And no comic book fan could look at the greatest figures of the medium and not see them being squandered by their respective companies.)
Indeed, the Greek concept of "Hero" was originally not one with a moral value, merely a concept representing a person who was larger than life. Someone whose deeds were great and mighty, someone who people in a society admired and whose story would be told. Even if another society could possibly consider said hero a monster. Even if there were aspects of that hero's character that the Greeks, themselves, might find distasteful. (Hello, Achilles.)
Compared to this, the concept of the "superhero" is possibly less-lasting. Because it relies heavily on potentially transient societal values. And on characters whose own canonical representations are at the mercy of writers who might not always know what the hell they're doing with the assignment dropped in their lap.
Like it or not, the amoral concept of "Hero of Mighty Deeds" is a lasting one that still holds appeal in modern times--one that speaks to the core of every human being alive. One that still exists today, though some feel the need to append the prefix "Anti-" to it in order to appease their ideals.
But the idea still holds. Because people are both Good and Evil in equal measure, and as people we've mostly come to terms with that. And dealt with it as best we can.
...
tl;dr: This thread's a bit silly when you think about it.
Thanks. And the boldface end bit was more of a coda that reveals the secret root motive lurking behind my post more than anything else. There's no better way to add to a silly debate than a wall of text with a wink and a grin.
Wow heavy duty reply.Dorian Cornelius Jasper said:
1) I have no issue with people killing people for certain reasons. Soldiers, cops, whatever. But as a self-nominated crime fighter I don't believe I have the place in society to render judgment to the extent of ending another life. I'm actually applying to be an officer in the British army but that's not me with superpowers. That's me trained by a responsible authority to act, something superheroes shouldn't be, they shouldn't be soldiers.
2) Superheroes are unrealistic but I believe it's part of their role to be unrealistically humane. Mercy is a virtue not a weakness. People seem to have forgotten this these days.
3) The Greek heroes were very much militaristic or in a society that had far less sanctity for human life than we do. Most of the ancient heroes were dicks. No two ways about it, they just got away with it by being able to beat up other / being a local king.
4) Marvel's 'realism' is verging on the hilarious with the mutated gene's causing laser vision. But I've always seen the point of a superhero very much as a (social) ideal not as a real person. Batman is not a middle aged man with psychotic tendencies (the goddamn Batman) he's an instrument of justice, he is the night, he is The Batman. DC's big leaguers are symbols in the way Marvel's very are. Marvel's and that's fine if that's what you want from your hero. But I don't want people. I want Batman, I want Superman, I want The Man with No Name, I want King Arthur. I want symbols. I don't give a shit if Spiderman is behind on his rent.
Happy christmas to all. I hope my heavy drinking hasn't completely ruined my syntax.
I think this is the first time your position was stated outright. I'm sorry for taking offense at your earlier posts--your reaction struck me as a bit over-the-top when people started replying in favor of killing than not. I can certainly respect a personal choice not to hold oneself above the law when acting as a self-appointed crime fighter.
If I had the honest-to-goodness power to be able to completely overwhelm ordinary human criminals I would probably apprehend them and deliver them to the police. This is mostly as a rather calculating move, as I can afford to leave "normal" criminals alive and get the good PR for being a more just or merciful hero.
Against superhuman criminals or those few ordinary humans capable of such depths of evil that even I or my loved ones would be at risk should they be left to live (thinking of the Joker here), I would probably be less willing to hold back. These are the sorts of villains that normal society might not be equipped to handle. If a superhuman threat appears to be holding back against ordinary humans I would reconsider, unless of course said threat doesn't intend to hold back against superheroes trying to stop it (including, hypothetical-me). But in the unlikely case the threat is actually willing to hold back against normals I'd think it'd be open to reason and I would attempt to negotiate.
Threats on a Cosmic level are right out.
If I were a super-powered human fighting crime, I don't think I'd be able to live up to the symbol of "superhero." Especially since I'd like to profit from my position (since holding a day job might be troublesome). What company wouldn't want a superhuman promoting their product? I don't care if I'm viewed as a sell-out by my peers, if I'm going to be a superhero I'm going to put all of my effort into it. It will be the day job.
In that case, if my powers were largely generic (strength, toughness, speed, and possibly flight) I would also take one particular step to promote my image. I would pretend that my powers were the result of kung-fu training and I would pretend to be a wuxia hero. Because generic heroes need schticks and it's hard to get advertising deals when you're just another guy. Would also look into mundane disguise methods not related to masks, so I can present a false face while acting as though it were my real one.
I'd be less Arthur, more Gawain. In an abstract sense, anyway.
And Merry Christmas.
If I had the honest-to-goodness power to be able to completely overwhelm ordinary human criminals I would probably apprehend them and deliver them to the police. This is mostly as a rather calculating move, as I can afford to leave "normal" criminals alive and get the good PR for being a more just or merciful hero.
Against superhuman criminals or those few ordinary humans capable of such depths of evil that even I or my loved ones would be at risk should they be left to live (thinking of the Joker here), I would probably be less willing to hold back. These are the sorts of villains that normal society might not be equipped to handle. If a superhuman threat appears to be holding back against ordinary humans I would reconsider, unless of course said threat doesn't intend to hold back against superheroes trying to stop it (including, hypothetical-me). But in the unlikely case the threat is actually willing to hold back against normals I'd think it'd be open to reason and I would attempt to negotiate.
Threats on a Cosmic level are right out.
If I were a super-powered human fighting crime, I don't think I'd be able to live up to the symbol of "superhero." Especially since I'd like to profit from my position (since holding a day job might be troublesome). What company wouldn't want a superhuman promoting their product? I don't care if I'm viewed as a sell-out by my peers, if I'm going to be a superhero I'm going to put all of my effort into it. It will be the day job.
In that case, if my powers were largely generic (strength, toughness, speed, and possibly flight) I would also take one particular step to promote my image. I would pretend that my powers were the result of kung-fu training and I would pretend to be a wuxia hero. Because generic heroes need schticks and it's hard to get advertising deals when you're just another guy. Would also look into mundane disguise methods not related to masks, so I can present a false face while acting as though it were my real one.
I'd be less Arthur, more Gawain. In an abstract sense, anyway.
And Merry Christmas.
True, but even the Earth 1 Golden age Batman would not use a gun, maybe a gun that fires a grappling hook or other various non-lethal or minium force type of weaponary, but with Batman its usally the fists that do the talking.
I feel that a super-hero should be held to the same standards of morality as police officers, to do as much as possible to prevent the loss of life, but in a real-world situation, if it isn't possible to save the life/lives of innocent(s) then you choose the lesser of two evils by removing the threat.
Try the Mikami method: KILL THAT ALL, Let Kira sort them out.
But my stance personally, I like the Gandalf stance, who are we to give death.
But personally villians batman should've killed Joker...thats the only one, Joker damn well knows that hes doing, even if hes insane.
But I like the Rosarch method more, this dirt bag killed a young girl...time to send him to hell, *handcuffs him to radiator, give him a saw, then burn the house down*
But my stance personally, I like the Gandalf stance, who are we to give death.
But personally villians batman should've killed Joker...thats the only one, Joker damn well knows that hes doing, even if hes insane.
But I like the Rosarch method more, this dirt bag killed a young girl...time to send him to hell, *handcuffs him to radiator, give him a saw, then burn the house down*