Would you kill the Joker?

[O maestre]

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

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

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

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

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

You come across as a defeatist, that is perhaps not completely correct or fair, but I am struggling to find another term. If you are in anarchy ridden hellscape you stop resisting chaos because your system defined role is not as an active enforcer of the system but just a passive element, this is somewhat in contrast to your resentment of being... a mindless cog.

Let me be clear I understand, or at least I think I understand your stance, but I thoroughly disagree. You reason that not doing anything will just end up having another mad men spring up... you are most likely right, but if we follow your reasoning we would could conclude that fighting crime is meaningless, and that we can just as well abolish the criminal system. I don't believe that's what you want, I don't get the anarchist vibe from you, and I realize that Gotham is a comic book city and an extreme example, but in the case of the Joker you are hardly ill-informed.

Being a citizen should not consist of merely being a victim of a system, it should be in active participation within civilization and being a part of the system. When the system is at its breaking point, it is critical that even the small chain links are essential to holding it all together.

I never thought about it before, but in some way Batman has his purpose especially in a city where citizens have given up fighting back. Granted it is not your responsibility, not your assigned responsibility anyway.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I would probably go about it this way:

Danm ninja! I was going to post that! I mean after I beat the crap out of Joker, I would hand him over demanding that the justice system should change (allow death penalty) which I would want Batman to back me up.

 

[Leemaster777]

Lots of interesting opinions in the thread so far. But two things have come up that I feel the need to comment on:

To everyone saying "If I didn't kill him, I'd be responsible for every person he killed after that". Bollocks. Everyone is responsible for their own choices, their own fate. Joker may be completely insane, but he CHOOSES to kill. No one is forcing him to do so. If you choose not to kill the Joker, you'd only be responsible for not killing the Joker. In that same vein, I don't feel like Batman is responsible for what the Joker does, just because he may/may not have been responsible for creating him (depending on who's writing the story at the time).

On the other side of the coin, to everyone saying "If I killed the Joker, I'd lower myself to his level". Equally bollocks. Killing an insane man to prevent him from murdering countless others is NOT the same thing as what the Joker does. Would you be lowering yourself morally? Perhaps. But you wouldn't become as bad as the Joker, simply by killing him to save potential future victims.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

I'd definitely try to kill the Joker with the gun before the Joker added me to his long list of victims, but having never handled a firearm before I do not fancy my chances.

 

[SpAc3man]

Without hesitation. I would even double-tap just to make sure.
This guy is the personification of criminal insanity and genius at the same time.
I am opposed to the death penalty in real life but in this fictional case we already know the Joker is beyond any grain of hope of rehabilitation and furthermore can not be held in any prison no matter how secure.

 

[K12]

You've got to think that by now the Joker has killed a number of people equivalent to Osama Bin Laden, and proved himself to be impossible to keep detained so what would stop you.

I think the moral answer would, by this point, have to be yes. Batman's insistence on not killing people he knows for a fact to be irredeemable and unlockupable (apparently that is a word) is bordering on egomania.

Batman cares more about his enemies and his own image as a guy with "thou shalt not cross" lines than the lives of innocent Gothamites.
But of course so does the audience so that's fine.

 

[hooblabla6262]

Yes.

Usually I'd be one to argue for rehabilitation, but there are always exceptions. I think the Joker is a clear one.
No matter how much you tried, that particular individual is just too far gone. Not killing him endangers far too many lives to take such a risk.

I'd turn myself in though.

 

[rednose1]

Yep, without question. The man causes nothing but death, misery, and suffering. Shot him and walk away knowing you prevented countless others from dying because of his cruel jokes.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

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

I never knew killing one mass murdering psychopath who will very likely end up killing more people in the future equated to killing dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of people because it's funny.

Cold blooded murder is cold blooded murder whether it be one or one hundred thousand.

The impact is different, each one of those thousand people were individuals not just numbers, each on of them had thoughts and aspiration for the future, had loved ones had community ties, someone like Stalin would say that the death of one is the same as the death of a thousand. By your logic serial killers should only be charged with with one count of murder, actually by your reasoning there would be no such thing as serial killers. When it comes to people numbers do count, at least they do to me.

Well ok yeah, the impact is different. However you're still lowering yourself to his level, aren't you?

First we have to accept that morality is nor objective, by that extension context is everything... kind of the reason we have court cases to determine degrees of sentencing and juries, because context is important. The Jokers background is at best political at worst for his own enjoyment. I would kill him to not only to protect myself, but at the massive scale of his killings to protect my family, and my fellow man and his family. I am not debasing myself at all, in accordance to my own personal morality, whether it is in line with judicial morality... well that is for a jury to decide

If you say so. Legal "justice" is a load of convoluted bullshit.

Well ok yeah, the impact is different. However you're still lowering yourself to his level, aren't you?

So? What's more important, maintaining your position on your higher level or preventing all the suffering he'll go on to cause?

And that's even if you were actually going to his level, which would be the level of murdering people because it's fun. You'd be lowering yourself to the level of someone who kills someone to protect the people they would inevitably go on to hurt and kill; it's much higher up on the morality ladder.

Maybe it is, but I cannot kill someone in cold blood while they lie defenceless on the floor, even if it is the Joker. Now if he was up and awake an we were in some sort of life or death struggle then maybe I'd kill him.

Okay, if such a situation ever comes up, make sure to give the gun to someone who puts the lives and safety of dozens, if not hundreds, of other people over their desire to not do anything that goes against their morals.

Hey there's no need to attack me!!

I don't think he was attacking you, merely stating that if you are unwilling to take action you should step aside and let someone else make a crucial decision, you yourself stated that you wouldn't be able to do it unless very specific circumstances were present. Though you don't seem to comfortable with it since you regard his comment as an attack.

Ok maybe it was a knee jerk reaction to assume it was an attack.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

So we're in a world of super villians and super heroes and i get the possibility to take out a super-villian?

Deal. We're talking about a world were single individuals have the power to change the world, so why not put a stop to someone whos only interested in making people suffer?

 

[senordesol]

Without a moment's hesitation or consideration: I would blast him, chop him to little bits and burn them!

It's the bleeding Joker! His entire existence is to cause suffering to his fellow man. To do anything less to him, if given the chance, is to be COMPLICIT with that goal. I'd compare him to a rabid dog, but even that metaphor's fucked...a rabid dog doesn't know what it's doing.

There is no moral conundrum here: If you don't take this opportunity -right here, right now- he WILL kill again; maybe you, maybe someone you care about, maybe a hundred people you've never met -but a hundred people all the same- there is no reason to hesitate.

For those saying that killing him make you 'like' him: No. Just no. If you're killing for fun -for shits and giggles- THEN you're like him. If you're offing him because its the only way to be sure this criminal mastermind will never hurt anyone else, then you're as unlike him as can be.

 

[Angie7F]

If I kill the Joker, will I be able to replace Batman and become a new super hero?
If not, then i wouldnt bother.

With great power comes great responsibility.
I would leave it up to batman so I dont have to deal with the media frenzy that may follow later.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

I wouldn't even hesitate

The only hard thing about that choice is keeping it a secret from everyone that I did what the Bat couldn't

I think you mean "what the Bat wouldn't do". Because lets be honest. If Bats didn't have that whole no killing rule he'd hunt down all his enemies in one night.

Nope.
However I would probably tie him up, throw him in the trunk of a car and drive to Texas, where I'd turn him over
to the first law enforcement officer I saw. And let *them* kill him.

Why hasn't Batman ever thought of that?!
[sub](Answer: "Because DC likes making money on Batman comics.")[/sub]

 

[kasperbbs]

I would shoot him in the face, at least twice to be sure. According to this scenario i'm a vigilante who wants to protect the people of his city and letting him go would just result in the same thing that has happened many many times already and more people would end up dead because of it, so ofcourse i would do it.

After reading most of the responses here i realized that i'm probably a terrible person, oh well.

 

[SonofaJohannes]

Probably not, I don't think I have it in me to kill someone. Maybe if he attacked me and I had no other option, but I wouldn't be able to just pick up a gun and shoot him just like that.

 

[O maestre]

Spoiler: snip

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

I never knew killing one mass murdering psychopath who will very likely end up killing more people in the future equated to killing dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of people because it's funny.

Cold blooded murder is cold blooded murder whether it be one or one hundred thousand.

The impact is different, each one of those thousand people were individuals not just numbers, each on of them had thoughts and aspiration for the future, had loved ones had community ties, someone like Stalin would say that the death of one is the same as the death of a thousand. By your logic serial killers should only be charged with with one count of murder, actually by your reasoning there would be no such thing as serial killers. When it comes to people numbers do count, at least they do to me.

Well ok yeah, the impact is different. However you're still lowering yourself to his level, aren't you?

First we have to accept that morality is nor objective, by that extension context is everything... kind of the reason we have court cases to determine degrees of sentencing and juries, because context is important. The Jokers background is at best political at worst for his own enjoyment. I would kill him to not only to protect myself, but at the massive scale of his killings to protect my family, and my fellow man and his family. I am not debasing myself at all, in accordance to my own personal morality, whether it is in line with judicial morality... well that is for a jury to decide

If you say so. Legal "justice" is a load of convoluted bullshit.

It is, but it unfortunately has to be. A text book example of how murder can't be black and white is self defence, while killing is killing, very few people would think it was just to give the same sentence to a man who defended himself against an assailant and a man who killed for cruelties sake or monetary gain. Justice is a concept of moral righteousness, and we all have personal moralities and often our laws are shaped based on what is considered to be an approximate consensus of those moralities and on the basis of equal treatment through civil rights, at least that is the ideal of democratic societies. Therefore the law can become convoluted and sometimes unrelatable.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Yep, maybe shoot him in the knee caps and let him bleed out. Come on, if you know the joker has killed thousands, and you know what he looks like. Not like he hides who and what he is. So yeah, he would be dead. I would make sure of it. Also as its comics, its best to burn the body, take the ashes and scatter them over several different continents and all keep a bit for yourself to lock away in a safe place just in case all the ashes could be found and combined and make joker reborn.

 

[Clowndoe]

Yep, definitely. It's not a revenge thing or for fun, I don't support the death penalty, and punishment should be a means of correcting someone, not revenge. But if it's the only way to save the thousands of people he'd otherwise be after, then it's totally worth it.

 

[DaWaffledude]

Without a doubt. Someone like him wouldn't even register as human to me.