I like how in Injustice Jason doesn’t agree with Superman or Batman. He says he feels Superman has gone way too far but he feels Batman should loosen up his rules.
@@oracle308Batman had one bad day and isn’t going around killing children or tryna take over the world sure he’s not as sane as before but he still understands u can’t let one bad day define u or break you no matter how much the memory hurts
@@oracle308 Well it was that and Wonder Woman goading him into becoming more extreme. Injustice WW is considered one of the most despicable for good reason.
@@theoutlawking9123 Batman let the Joker run free so many times. This mofo killed a bunch of people. I don't understand Batman's rules. I'm starting to think that this is just the way the author wants Batman to look like
@@dinhlien980 Oh definitely, it's because they're too lazy to create new villains, so they let the heroes spare them so they can keep reusing them. Problem is, it makes the heroes look Incompetent.
@@theoutlawking9123 Exactly. That's why DC heroes start to look like a bunch of clowns to me. Don't get me wrong, even Marvel heroes look like that nowadays. Look at Thor, in the new movie with Natalie port-person in it. He looked like the absolute joke of the joker. The only person that looks believable enough, is The Punisher. Even Ironman is evil as hell(Just take a look at axis comic, where heroes like Tony Stark literally poisoned people to get profit), and he ain't the hero on the screen. For me, I just like watching Kengan Ashura nowadays and be like "No, thank you" to the whole DC and Marvel thing
In all honesty, Joker kind of deserved it in the Injustice universe. He's already done a lot of messed up shit, but drugging Superman into thinking Lois is Doomsday, trick him into killing her in orbit, with his unborn son mind you, and placing a trigger in her heart the moment it stopped beating to completely destroy Metropolis and kill MILLIONS more people? Yeah, I think it's suffice to say that Joker went WAY too far and should have been executed right on the spot. I don't blame Superman for being angry and killing him in a blind rage. Cause if that happened to me, I'd probably do the same.
@joshuahughes3377 If only New Jersey had the death penalty. Then Joker would have been executed a long time ago. I say New Jersey because that's the state Gotham City is in the DC Universe.
90% of TH-cam Users seem to fall under that category... ...I am in the other 10% that prefers Batman not by a copy of The Punisher (we have Elseworld Stories for THAT.)
Honestly his code makes a whole lot of sense in a realistic sense, like in our system a lot of the villains would get the death sentence/virtually impossible conditions to escape, but Batman can't kill because he would literally be changed from a Vigilante to another criminal that the cops need to watch more
Yeah the real issue would be the justice system if they constantly allowed the joker to leave scott free after many successful attempts of leaving arkham asylum
@@GenesisBoioh come on dude, we all know Joker only hangs out in Arkham until he gets bored, it may as well be a retreat for the criminally insane of Gotham 😒😒😒
@@GenesisBoi 2 outta 3 I think, why would he ever want to leave if he had all three of those? He leaves to visit his Nocturnal Echo-locating Flying Mammal bro whenever he’s bored 🤣🤣🤣
At least what Jason said about not killing any other villain EXCEPT the Joker is 100% reasonable. If you kill someone like Black Mask or Penguin, someone within their faction will just replace them. But there isn't anyone else like Joker, even other psychotics like Zsasz. In Arkham City they knew Joker was dying, so nothing changed. But if they found out Batman straight up killed Joker, that would scare even the toughest of them to their core that the next time they get into a fight with Bats, they may not be going to prison.
or... well nothing would change, and they'ed just follow harley. (most of them do because they wanna stick the key into the ignition, yes but alot of joker's men are loyal either through trauma or some really sick form of love, Anger is really good motivator for doing something stupid. And deep down they know Batman didn't really kill joker. Even his thugs say as much "He's going to kill us like he did joker!" "By withholding Medicine?"
But the problem with only killing Joker is the people that support Batman will question why he didn't kill the others. "You kill the joker but you won't put down black mask" .
My main issue about Batman's morality isn't so much that he doesn't kill, his logic is sound and I respect that, it's how preachy he is about it and how he wants to enforce it on Jason even though the logic doesn't fully carry over on that front. It would make a lot more sense if the two agreed to collaborate and make compromise with one another : Red Hood holds off about killing people and let's Batman try his method of trying to rehabilitate (but truly this time, like not just throwing people in Arkham and calling it a day, like help people such as Killer Croc and Mr Freeze to get out of the loop) but then pass the relay to Jason once he knows that the villain in front of him is beyond saving. That way Batman keeps his morality and can help mitigate the potential excesses of Jason but Jason still can carry out his justice against the worst of the worst. Though we all why something like that isn't implemented and the fake conflict is kept : they want a reason to have the Joker keep coming back despite how all logic should dictate that Batman let's Jason pick at least this one
@@jagnestormskull3178they had this backfire in gods of monsters. Because they’re so willingly to kill who is to say they wouldn’t exert that stretch of authority for their own gain? Not that they did, however how can the public trust you if you were innocent? How can people trust that wouldn’t be used on them at some point?
In the end it isn’t about Morality. It’s about villain popularity. Manga can get away with killing baddies because it’s a story. Not a weekly event. They need (x) alive for future issues.
Yeah, but then, Batman is still complicit in the killing of whomever he chooses to leave to Jason. There really is no middle ground between their ideologies because the only difference between the two is whether the perpetrators go to prison or the morgue.
I think it's cause the person who apprehended him and was basically a witness to the crimes he's committed,that being batman,is a vigilante aka he can't exactly testify in court against joker,unlike an official representative/enforcer of the law aka a cop for instance,tht and the fact joker displays signs of mental issues despite the fact hes actually super sane,as in he knows for a fact he's a comic book character,like imagine u wake up one day and discover ur a character in a show or movie,meanin whatever u do it won't matter,but ofc the justice system of Gotham doesn't understand sucha concept so they mark him as "criminally insane" that combined with the whole batman can't testify in court bit,are the reason why joker doesn't end up in blackgate awaiting execution,why he always ends up at an asylum not a supermax prison
Better question: how many good cops does Gotham have? Not a single cop ever said "Enough from the clown" *BANG!!!* blows Joker's brains out. I understand Wayne and Gordon fighting crime "by the book" but there's no way every cop shares those niceties.
*You can't stop crime. That's what you never understood. I'm controlling it. You wanna rule them by fear, but what do you do with the ones who aren't afraid?* That line from Batman: Under the Red Hood makes me question of whether or not there are flaws within Batman's moral code and Jason has every right to take that is more beneficial but could potentially lead a darker route for the formal Boy Wonder. This is a moral ambiguity situation when the lines of good and evil become very blur.
"but what do you do with the ones who aren't afraid?" Cripple them in front of the leaders of the ones who are afraid and make them into examples. Still living. _Only_ still living.
not really, Punisher regularly takes down major crime organization and bosses, it's just that there are some guys that manage to squeeze past his bullets but he still has an effect (just that the vacuums he leaves are filled rather quickly by others, whom he kills).
Anti-Heroes should be used to kill pre-existing villains who aren't used very often, or are unnecessary. Or some villains for hires should be allowed to kill Heroes who aren't popular or utilised often. Like, imagine a RedHood story where he is hunting down DollMaker. Or a DeathStroke story where he successfully kills Tempest.
Don't forget how Jason said he wasn't going to k!ll every criminal just those that are way beyond redemption or control Joker is one of those villians that needs to be put down yet batman won't do it or let anyone else do it
@ThuanVong-uh1di oh they'd love him especially punisher, he'd also join if not lead the thunderbolts and no i don't think he'd join the regime that's a step to far even for him And yeah we can Blame batman foe these choices Gotham has been close to point blank genocide by several villians and batman chooses to just lock them up, even when Harley who's someone that has been redeemed told batman to k!ll the joker, he still couldn't do it and it took Harley to make that decision for him
I mean he is indirectly responsible for the thousands of deaths in Gotham because of his code and bad thing about him is that he does push his no kill code on to others and make sure they follow his code and the whole thing where he talking to Jason on how if he every were to kill even once he'll never come back from the brink so basically all i heard was you have no self control batman even if it was to save Gotham city you wouldn't kill that why don't like batman per say because if came down to saving Gotham or saving the Joker which would pick also that why i like heroes like green arrow or red hood because there not afraid to do what necessary if come down too saving some or the world
@@thunderlion6909 true but Batman know that vigilantism is a crime and also it canon well kinda in most universes and also Batman have no rights but I prefer spider man than Batman atleast peter willing to kill when it a last resort
i don't understand why the f the death sentence isn't a thing in the dc universe. the joker is doing some Saddam Husain stuff and getting into some super breakable Jail instead if the death row.
One word; magic. Even death can't stop everyone in dc. That's why you put them in a cell. If they escape from jail, you're just fighting a guy that escaped from jail. If you kill them, and they come back, you're dealing with one zombie, at best.
Being fair in the Arkham universe at some point there was a death penalty in Batman Arkham origins calendar man was about to be executed little before the first riot in blackgate.
When it comes to rehabilitation, the main thing with that is, YOU have to want to get better. Everytime Batman puts his rouges gallery in Arkham, they don't try to better themselves, they wait to get out, wether it's a break out or by other means. Batman trying to give them the chance to change is squandered cause they don't wanna get better, they wanna keep being who they are. I think it's very interesting to think about and I love Jason and he will always be my favorite.
We should be asking how does joker avoid the death sentence, batman doesnt want to kill personally but im sure he'll be eating popcorn watching his switch being flipped in the electric chair
Lemme paint u a pic : imagine u bein a shrink or psychologist or wtever,and u see joker who's basically "super sane" as in he understands and realizes he's a fictional character in a comic book,thts legit the reason why joker despite all his "insanity" can still form complex plans,why he displays some symptoms of other mental illnesses yet doesn't fit the bill for any of them,like thts a whole ass rabbit hole for any psychologist,so they just mark him as "criminally insane" cause tryina understand joker means u have to b as super sane as he is,hell even Martian manhunter an honest to God Martian collapsed whn he tried to read jokers mind at some point
I would say that the real problem is the corruption in Gotham. Pretty sure that with all the crimes that he committed, he wouldn't just go to a prison in Gotham or to a asylum that isn't that secure
Bruce also made Wayne corporation the backbone of Gotham and his unwillingness to use his power to push for reform, or his own “corruption”, so to speak, that will guarantee that the criminals that need to be disposed of are, it just shows his hypocrisy, because he literally does have the power on both sides of the coin to make an actual impact, but he’s going to use his fallacy in one to fuel the other and as a result, nothing accomplished, and it’s just status quo ad infinitum. He’s just playing tic-tac-toe on the chessboard of Gotham and is wondering why nothing is being accomplished when he’s knows he’s not playing by the rules necessary to win.
All you have to do is ask the dark knight returns batman. He would agree with Jason. Remember his words to the joker. "All the people I've killed by letting you live."
Dark Knight returns Batman wouldn't agree. In the moment he wanted to kill the Joker but he didn't in the end and Joker killed himself. That quote doesn't mean he'd actually agree especially outside of that one moment
@@jlpgaminok you clearly didn't read the dark knight return comics 1 joker didn't kill himself batman did because the whole joker broke his neck and taiking before he die was only happening in batman mind because the last word of joker taiking before killing himself was in gray bubble text and the things is only batman gray bubble text because eveytime he taik inside his mind or outside(sometime) it show a gray bubble text instead of green(this already tell you that batman has kill him by broken his neck and even after joker die he sit beside his dead body and say shut up to the joker where he is already dead all of this tell you batman has kill him ) and 2 doing one of batman comic runs batman(the batman who lost his arm and replaced it with a iron arm ) he was going to so many other universes like arkham batman universe and the other movies universes he go to the dark knight return universe and say he didn't like that a batman has broke his code and has no guilt of killing the joker and in the dark knight return comic Bruce say that he regret not killing joker sooner and is a fool for believing someone like the joker can be redeem
@cosmicspider9132 in the comic your literally referring to Dark Knight Returns Batman tells main Batman that he didn't kill him and that he killed himself so your straight up wrong it wasn't in his mind it was real
I have a relevant counter to the whole "Why did Batman not kill the Joker.", which is _"Why does the Joker not just get executed at this point, he SHOULD have earned the death penalty."._ Every. Single. Time. People discuss Bruce's moral code as Batman, they never discuss about why the Gotham Justice system keeps letting bad guys like the Joker out, why he keeps going to 'Arkham Asylum' instead of a proper prison. Mind you, the Batman HAS tried to kill the Joker a few times, but in almost every case the Joker escaped or survived. Batman's code is to stop him from becoming like Ra's Al Ghul, someone who kills because they 'could' become a threat. Batman isn't the only piece that is broken in the justice system of Gotham, technically he isn't even a part of said system. But it shouldn't be on some lone person to decide who lives and who dies. Mind you Jason completely failed, he could have chosen to shoot Joker, rather then trying to shoot Batman. He had the chance to stop the biggest villain, but instead tried to end the one guy in the room who DIDN'T kill anyone. Batman was right with his code, as Jason went so far into his murderpath, that he skipped over the guy who killed him, to punish the guy who merely failed to protect him.
then you have to question the 'intent' of the woke writers who prevent batman from killing, prevent the justice system to eliminate these monsters, and continue this messed up situation forever
@@misuvittupaa8068 yes the woke has been with us for a long time but they known by other names: libs, hippies, flower people, socialist, communist, anti-gun, anti death penalty, free sex(but they changed their tune now), more 'humane' society, 'progressives', etc those kind of people
I Love how much of a Utilitarian and a Realist Jason is! This is why I Love "Batman: Under the Red Hood" and the Red Hood being Morally Ambiguous and being the Anti-Hero, and also it's because he is Limiting the Harm and Crime as much as Realistically Possible, Especially him Commandeering the Top of the Hierarchy in the Favour of making sure that the Innocent are not Harmed, or at the very Least Minimised it!
Until DC editoral nerfs him to high heaven and makes him "non-leathal"...and yet continues to buff Nightwing everytime a world reset, reformat, crisis happens.
One thing that comes to my mind about this. I can understand batman not killing, however, any smart person like batman should be would still at least take extra steps to prevent joker for harming people. When you fail or make a mistake, it is natural to learn from said failure/mistake and improve things so that that failure doesn't happen again. The fact that the joker and all the other criminals escape all the time should be common knowledge to improve the prison or put them in a better prison so that they can't escape (or at the very less, it would be much harder to escape) again
But he consistently does. The problem is Gotham is too corrupt despite Bruce consistently going after those at the top on top of super villains. It's why Joker even got out in the movie because of corruption
the court just gotta give joker a death sentence and have it happen as soon as possible same thing with all of batmans other major villians and i think the problem is going to start to fix itself with the corruption
@@godlygaming4844but then you run into the issue of Argus and Amanda Waller who aren’t just gonna let villains get executed. In JLU DCAU’s version of Deadshot was sentenced to death. He had his last meal and was about to be put to death when orders from on high pardoned him and allowed him to go free so he could be apart of Task Force X.
So much for being the 'smartest man alive'. The dude is so dumb that he doesn't realize that his villains use his 'moral code' to kill over and over again because they know that, when it comes down to it, Bruce will NEVER drop the hammer on them regardless of how many innocent throats they slash
@jeremyallen5974 that logic goes for any hero who have villains that cause massive deaths. You can't blame Batman for the justice system choosing to keep them alive
Batman knows that there are people who deserve to die, but he refuses to do it himself, so he leaves it to the people to do it themselves. Because Batman will never return once he kills. That's why when Jason made him choose between him or the Joker, he walked away, not because he was avoiding the decision, but because he was letting Jason kill Joker himself if that's what he needed. Of course, Red Hood misinterprets and tries to get Batman to not walk away. This is the only time he'll let Red Hood go because he has a point, but that doesn't make him right as he would still criticise Jason's motives. This is why I prefer crime lord Red Hood to vigilante Hood because he understood much more than Bruce will ever will.
As much as I love Batman…Jason’s not really doing anything morally wrong. Sure, killing is wrong, but he’s not evil or corrupted. He was hurt and got sick of people like the Joker running around freely. It’s hard to say because both sides are right.
In all honesty, I feel it truly boils down to Batman knowing once he crosses that line, his judgement will become to clouded, making him unstoppable in one of the worst ways.
1-Money and Lazy writers, heck it why the No kill code was even given to Batman, because the writers got sick of Joker surviving death scarnios 2-In some continuity it actually Bruce Wayne who prevents Gotham from re introducing the death penalty, personal I find this to be one of the worst concepts to even be introduced in Batman story, because at this point Batman is literally the problem 3-Corruption in the government
@@gameover9390 You don't even realistically need the death penalty. Just get an actually secure prison where the police will shoot if you escape and send Joker there instead of Arkham. Joker's already done worse than a lot of metahumans, so put him in somewhere like Slabside so he'll be stuck in Antarctica even if he tries to escape or Bruce could even just use his money to make a new prison.
The main reason these guys dont get the chair is specifically because they end up at Arkham. Which is an insane asylum. They are ruled incompetent to stand trial or not guilty due to insanity. If they are incompetent or insane, they cannot be executed. This is also why they break out so often, as Arkham isn't an actual prison. The fact that, in many continuities, Arkham is run by Hugo Strange (who treats the whole thing like one big petri dish) doesn't help matters much.
I like how in the scene where Jason points a gun at Joker and says "him or me", Batman just walks away. Batman wasn't walking away because he was looking for Jason to hesitate and drop his guard; if he did, great! He was walking away because he couldn't stop Jason.
Nyssa called out Batman in Arkham Knight the same way if he revive Ra’s because he’s not a killer. “And you think that means there’s no blood on your hands?” As much as I love Batman I do believe his code is flawed. There are people in this world who will do incalculable amounts of damage to the lives of the innocent & defenseless if left alive. I remember what Alfred told him in the Dark Knight about the Joker, “Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn!" If evil has no limits but good is tied down with restrictions then evil will prevail.
I agree with Jason if he put down a lot of the big villains in Gotham and replaced them with controllable criminals whom he can control and manipulate, he could eliminate crime to a minor percentile the revolving door in Arkham has proven itself time and time again to be a flawed system when people like the Joker or the riddler can easily break out and start a huge plot that ends up killing a lot of people
@@redninja3056I rather have controlled crime that is in the small percentile than have crime that is in batshit high percentile. You have too look at this as cold numbers to save more lives, well that was what I was thought.
@@redninja3056 that is a statistical impossibility. There will always be crimes one way or the other, be it from a material stand point or a moral one. It is best to be realistic on things like crime.
The issue has never been with Batman. Its with the parody justice system. Not even a broken one, just, parody, which comes down to either playing along with the parody and not taking Batman stories seriously or being critical. Red Hood should honestly be going after literally everyone else than trying to prove a point to Batman
To be fair in Batman's own words he said I want to torture and end Joker but after I do that allowing myself to go down into the place I will never come back which means he can't judge people for killing not only that but he believes that he would not be any different than Joker or Joe chill which is why even though he lost Jason Todd there for Red Hood he wouldn't kill anyone. Plus Red Hood killing is just what he was meant to be in my opinion and I love it.
The question people SHOULD be asking is why he still clings to the delusion that leaving his villains to a shitty criminal justice system will make them 'change their ways' when he is shown time and again that all it amounts to is an ever growing pile of innocent corpses in the rear view mirror
Moral of the DC story is the criminals in Gotham is batman personal punching bags. Superman known that for years and when batman didn't fall in line he took all of his punching bags away by putting them in a impenetrable prison.
I think to a certain degree Batman is correct, but when someone goes to the extreme like the Joker, Red Hood is right. When you are too far gone and have no desire to change like the Joker. I think you should be killed. The Joker has taken away so many lives, and all he does is break out just to do it again. So, going as far as Joker levels of crime where he never really changes. Yes. He should be the one exception to the no kill rule.
Good video, and I like your comment about how it might be better to kill the nonredeemable criminals like the Joker. However, that isn't the main reason why Batman doesn't kill. In fact, there is a rebuttal about that in the movie itself. After asked why he didn't kill the Joker by Jason, Batman says that he is unable to not because of any moral code, but because of his (Bruce's) moral failing. Batman is aware that if he lets himself kill once, he would entirely unravel and become a monster. You can see it very easily if you look at other Batman media (like the Justice League: Doom movie or the Tower of Babel comic) that Bruce has the potential to be a very nasty supervillain, so the fact that he has guardrails in place to prevent him from becoming a monster is a pretty good thing. I know you're a comic casual so you might not know this, but there is a bit in a comic where Batman talks about why he is proud of each of his proteges. In it, Batman says he is proud of Jason because he can make the decisions the Bruce can't, and can cross lines Bruce is unable to while keeping a moral code. I think that is the biggest difference between Jason and Bruce. For Bruce, the no killing must be cast iron or he risks becoming a monster, while Jason is mentally sane enough to be able to keep his morality after doing what Bruce thinks of as the ultimate sin. As such, Batman's moral code is great for people who due to past trauma or a willingness to take things too far, need guardrails while Red Hood's philosophy is great for people who are in control enough to not slip.
Personally, if some super villain killed my kid and I was a vigilante that already technically worked outside the law, nothing and no one is gonna be able to save that super villain from my wrath no moral code would stop me from avenging my kid.
If batman listened to red hood plastic man would be dead, harley Quinn would've never been turned to good, most petty criminals would be killed and superman would've stopped batman anyway
@@redninja3056 bro we aren't talking about injustice style Batman where everyone dies, we talking about just the worst of the worst criminals which was Red Hoods whole point....
I feel Batman's moral code would work, if the justice system in Gotham actually worked. I recall reading from a comment on a different video (about a year ago, I don't remember the specific comment/video x.x) - that the issue is how Gotham's justice system doesn't give the death sentence to criminals responsible for mass murder, destruction, etc. Batman's moral code would work fine - capture the criminals and let the justice system decide. However, the justice system itself is either completely wacky, or corrupt to a severe point to allow these criminals to continue terrorizing innocents. To the point really that in Batman's universe, Jason is right. If the justice system fails to properly punish and end such extreme criminals, then what's the point of capturing them to begin with? tldr; Batman's moral code would work with a non-corrupted justice system. Jason's works with the corrupt justice system Gotham has.
Honestly when seeing red hood it only reenforced batman's moral code in my mind and why he shouldn't and couldn't fall down that slippery slope Batman would become the terror of Gotham if any and all criminals lose their life the moment they are in that situation. The innocent would immediately get clipped as the villains would know batman won't let them off easy so more chaos and violence would occur. Plus any and all reformed villains would not get that chance to be free. We got the ventriloquist who can reform many times. riddler in some storylines where he becomes a good guy. Harley a few times and so on.
Did the opposite for me. I don't mind a little optimism for rehabilitation, but, there's only so many times that villain can be: Batman stops villain, sends them to Arkham, come out, kill another hundred or so people, Batman stops villain rinse and repeat. From what I read, Gotham takes place in New Jersey, which doesn't have Capital Punishment....So this is just causing more harm than good overtime. Yes, some characters got redeemed, but those stories are few and far between. Some criminals need to get iced as a last resort, and this is why I prefer Superman/Spiderman. They ice their gallery when they know when they have no other options. Batman is over here saving a *terrorist* from ending his own life while he gleefully laughs as he falls off a building on purpose. When people say "Batman should kill X", they don't mean common mook/thugs, they mean people who clearly don't want to rehabilitate themselves.
@@Lonewolfprime. See that mindset you have? It's dangerous for anyone to have. Spiderman doesn't ice villains same with superman as much as you are saying. They are opposite same with batman. Sounds like you just want to dislike batman and make an excuse at the same time. Superman starts ending foes. Boom he's dictator in a second. Spiderman does it. He's venom and carnage. Not sure why you think injustice superman or carnage are heroes by that mentality. Plus you are missing the point of why heroes shouldn't take the law into their hand(read civil war) The slippery slope mentality leads to people thinking "well I can do it too since the hero is praised for it" and it will lead to civil unrest instantly by making excuses from major villains who end lives to people smoking who btw end more lives than super villains (read the chess scene in injustice) so they should go around ending smokers and j walkers and such to make a "good society" But that's just me knowing an eye for an eye is a bad mentality to have. Same with any villain turning good and saving lives which we have seen many times before but removing the chance to fix yourself up by just popping heads(justice league unlimited)
@@ivanbluecool nice try: but injustice Superman only happened *because* of Wonder Woman, and Batman abandoned Superman instead of sticking by him like an actual true friend and trying to reset Clark on the right path. As soon as he killed Joker, what does Batman do? He LEFT. He didn’t even bother talking to him if memory serves me well. Also, what do you mean “Superman doesn’t ice villains”. He’s done it to Brainaic, Doomsday(that or he phantom zones him, something that Batman also has an issue with). He even done it to Parasite once, but in each of these cases, it was a last resort….and he *stayed good*. Spider-Man started killing as well, but he didn’t become venom or carnage: he only got rid of the worst of the worst and stopped there. I’m not hating on Batman: I’m criticizing his moral code, when other heroes *have* killed and shown to still be doing good. Even Wonder Woman kills as a last resort, yet she doesn’t go on a killing spree. You can’t just name one instance(which is Batman’s fault for not handling The Joker. He could have kept him locked up in a secure batcave and none of Injustice would have happened, and thus wouldn’t break his kill rule). I don’t agree with Injustice Superman, he went complete dictatorship and killed a kid for questioning him. Normal Superman kills but only if that threat is at very last resort, and continues to jail others just fine. No, a hero’s job is to prevent as much damage as possible from the villain. I don’t mind you giving villains chances of rehabilitation, but how many times has Joker been locked up, did the insanity plea, break out, and cause more PTSD to more innocent people? My mindset isn’t dangerous: it’s a logical conclusion from what I and others have seen. Some people just can’t change, and those people are better off not here. Either we put them in max confinement, or we axe them. Either way, they’re doing less harm. Did I say I want an eye for an eye? No. I’m alll for rehabilitation: but that takes the criminal to want to undergo that and reform themselves. I say give them a good amount of chances, but if they aren’t changing, and still killing millions, then that’s when we need a different last resort answer. Superman has done this(Brainaic) and didn’t lose his sh!t. He was still putting away lesser threats into prison for rehabilitation. Do you see what I mean now? Riddler may have changed in a storyline or two, but in main continuity, he breaks out and still plays riddle games with innocents. You can’t just keep doing the same thing, some people just don’t want to change.
@@Lonewolfprime. I agree, which is the reason why I have a problem with other series like Naruto. Like, bruh, if someone who is in power thinks that Friendships and love can fix literal wars, mass genocides aftermaths, and literal countries in ruins because of so many crimes and corrupt leaders, then I'm sorry but they deserve to rot in hell. While I can agree that Bats should never do it, because how insane he is, I have a problem with him projecting it onto others, and like you should let people just do it, either government or heroes/vigilantes. Like, I watch how Bats literally have spied on heroes all just to make sure they don't turn bad. Even the Injustice acknowledge that Jason is literally the best of both Bats and Sups in terms of how actual heroin works since at that point, its pointless for both sides.
How come everyone talks about Red hood making us question batman's moral code, but anarky did that in the comics first and nobody talks about it? He was red hood before red hood was red hood.
@@Ash-Winchester and? He was never a great or even good villain. Better for him to be forgotten than a stain on the red hoods legacy. If it's not clear, I call him a stain because the biggest thing he contributes to DC is making Jason ever so slightly less original.
@@breakfaith3031 "He was never a great or even good villain." Maybe that's because he was never a villain. He's an anti hero that makes you question the meaning of the word criminal and gets you to realize that wayne is actually the bad guy. And how he can be a stain on red hood's legacy when he was active *before* jason became red hood?
@@Ash-Winchester he wasn't a good anti hero and the only thing he made me think was how disappointing he was. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit I see. He's a stain on Jason's legacy because he came first. His existence makes the red Hood less original.
I have to give you props because you took me on a roller coaster ride of I agree with Batman then I agree with Red Hood then I agree with Batman again. Absolutely a great video. Genuinely well done.
In the movie, Batman did admit that he really wants to kill the Joker but that he can't because he won't be able to come back from it. Some people need stark moral lines to help them control their darker impulses; any exception to those lines could be unconsciously taken as permission to abandon them entirely. I think Batman is like that. If he kills the Joker, then he would lose his carefully cultivated control over his rage and he would probably have a harder time finding reasons not to kill someone. On the other hand, some people don't need those lines. Some people can walk on the morally gray side without stumbling into becoming evil. I think Jason is one of those. I don't think that either type of person is stronger than the other. I think Batman and Jason are complimentary to each other because each can do what the other cannot; Jason can kill when Batman can't, but Batman can be the light that Jason has lost.
The reason Joker can’t break Batman is the same reason Batman can’t rehabilitate Joker. They’re both completely obsessed with their ideals and beyond the hope of returning to a normal life.
Sometimes, someone needs to "go" for things to change, Assassin's Creed is a prime example. Look what happens when Ezio let Rodrigo Borgia lives, and it backfired. Something similar between Batman and Joker, which always backfired when Batman let him live.
the most important thing is it made us think. kill joker = 1 death don't kill -> joker goes to prison -> joker escapes (maybe a few months later. let's say 3 - 4 times a year) -> each time the joker kills at least a dozen people before being caught again (at the very least) = let's say about 30 - 50 deaths a year not to mention all the psychological traume or the countless injured people
The thing that always bothered me on top of Batman’s skewed moral code is his favoritism. When the joker killed Jason, Batman just beat the joker up. When Batgirl was paralyzed and humiliated by the Joker, Batman didn’t do much. But when Greyson was hurt by KGBeast Batman almost killed the dude. Broke KGBeasts with the grappling gun in a desperate move. And for Damien, Batman turned himself in a man-bat to fight Talia’s army and then went on a campaign to fight Darksied on Apokolyse to bring Damnien back to life.
if batman wanted to kill he would become a monster, he doesn't kill cause its not his decision its the law's decision once he does the hard work of capturing them
There is a lot of arguments over moral philosophy but Jason's method would just create more structured crime organization and if he is remove then he just created a harder criminal environment to get rid of.
I agree that Batman shouldn't kill, but I do think there are heros that should kill, like Batman said if he killed he wouldn't stop, Jason Todd seems to be able to control himself and kill when needed rather than just cause
So something you don't bring up that i think helps explain batmans code is something between them. "What, would it be to hard to kill?!" "No! God no! It'd be to damn easy, there isn't a day that goes by that i don't consider ending his life." Batman could kill, he could, and there are definitely those he wants to, like the joker. But Batman knows that should be cross that line, he more then likely would never come back. Because once he's justified killing once, even if it's someone as understandable as the joker, then it becomes easier and easier to justify killing the not as bad next person on the list, and then the next one, till he's willing to snap the necks of petty drug peddlers. Now Ironically there are a number of versions of Jason todd/red hood that actually prove this logic flawed as they kill at first but become non-lethal when they rejoin the bat family. Now this could be something that Bruce doesn't think he has the capacity to withstand or just is right that he specifically could never come back across that line. That being said realistically he would never need to, some other villain type or criminal, a disgruntled civilian or hell a cop of questionable moral character would of put the joker down after his second escape from arkham given his pension for mass murder. The only reason this doesn't happen is cause the joker's to familar to be killed, comics sort of have that issue where they have a hard time with killing off characters that realistically should be while also turning around and slaughtering characters that have no reason outside of 'raising the stakes' or 'low sales'
If Batman killed, and didn’t loose his mental state and self motivation, Gotham would be one of the safest places next to metropolis imo Would you want to get all your bones broken piece by piece. and the last thing you see is Batman throwing you off a building and not catching you. Ending your life. Or Be a good sport? 🤣
Batman's code isn't the problem, rather it's how it's portrayed by modern writers that's the issue, having Zack Snyder get pissy because DC didn't want a killer Batman on screen says less about the character and more about the one writing him, also that can go the other way with Batman being portrayed as unreasonable and going to insane lengths to save the Joker even if it means dying himself, what needs happen is someone should ask why Gotham hasn't executed the Joker yet, like Red Hood said Joker has filled graveyards worth of people at this point and him being insane would not exclude him from the death penalty in a lot of places in the US.
If Batman doesn't wanna kill people on purpose,fine However, there are people who,like Joker, won't change for the better. By letting him live, as Jason said, Joker has filled multiple graveyards and no jail cell will ever hold him for long. Gotham and the rest of the world (in the DC universe) is better off without Joker And Batman doesn't have to be the one to kill him directly
Batman's "No Guns, No Killing" rule is just a result of the Comics Code Authority neutering comics back in the day, Batman wasn't meant to be a superhero. He was meant to be a Pulp Action Hero like The Phantom, the gun-toting guy in the purple suit. Personally, I want to see someone tackle that transition in a comic or movie, how Batman goes from violent gun-toting vigilante to superhero and his Rogues Gallery merely serve as reminders of his ugly past. Heck, his first fight with Joker could be the where he realizes killing might not be the answer since his attempt to kill him by throwing him into chemicals made him worse.
Except the comcis code was after he transitioned from pulp hero to superhero. It was mostly to differentiate from other pulp heroes that Bob Kane was copying as he went from a cheap knock off of The Shadow to being an actual original character which helped make him more iconic then the shadow ever was
@@MILDMONSTER1234 I think it might've been co-creator Bill Finger's doing for trying to change Batman, but I still believe the CCA was the nail in the coffin.
@@gameover9390 Okay, but still, I wish we could get a telling of how Batman goes from the Bob Kane version to the Bill Finger version. The Year One has been done to death, they need to try something new like that.
I believe Tim Burton portrayal of Batman is probably the balance between the two views. Batman reframed from lethal force until the Joker shows that he has the means of committing mass murder via a chemical weapon. Once he realizes that, he set out to stop Joker and his gang using lethal force, to protect Gotham.
It all boils down to ideologies. 1 will say that all life is precious (well maybe not in these EXACT words), the other will say that pure evil can only be stopped by permanent means.
Even though I still uphold Batman's moral code as a correct way to do things... I think that most versions of Jason Todd have a points when they say that Batman is wrong... Especially in the Arkham Universe, cause, if you didn't know, in the Arkhamverse, Jason went after Joker because he killed a busfull of children and stitched their bodies together(Oh, and Harley helped him, so Suicide Squad ruin Rocksteady's Reputation is still fucking stupid-), and even in different universes, like the mainline universe, Joker kidnapped Jason after Jason's mother betrayed him, before also kidnapping her and tying them up in a warehouse, he rugged the building to blow, and sadly, neither survived... And even in more tame universes, like the Dini-verse, Joker has still likely killed HUNDREDS, at least(Even though he can be kinda relatable with how broke he is)! Joker is a mass murdering psychopath, and I think this clip from Arkham VR explains why I think Jason has at least a BIT of a point... th-cam.com/video/xh1uKEtqQEQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=xI7KhBgu2G-csLbb
My interpretation is that Batman's moral code was imposed by himself because he understands himself all too well. It's like Batman said during the climax: "It'd be too damned easy." The reason Batman places such a strict, almost self-defeating rule on himself is because he knows that he'll be even more bloodthirsty than Frank Castle if he sets even a foot down that path, like a beast let loose. Another point I'd like to bring up is from Arkham Knight. (SPOILERS!) Throughout the whole game, the Joker has been trying to take over Batman's body. One of the biggest mental defenses Batman has against the Joker was his willingness to never kill. As long as Batman has that, the Joker can never truly possess Batman's body. That's why Joker tried so hard to push Batman into breaking that mental barrier, which he succeeded. (You crossed the blood-red line, Bruce!) Scarecrow was so close to utterly defeating Batman, too bad he has a very narrow image of what someone's worst fears looks like. Of course, Batman going out of his way to save the Joker from ending himself multiple times is pure idiocy. At that point, the future innocent lives the Joker takes are now on Batman.
“Batman should kill” seems a lot like when Count Dooku was trying to convince Yoda to use the dark side. So he embraces it for a moment and Dooku saw how completely terrifying and unstoppable Yoda would be if he did. If Batman used all of his skills but without restraint, he would quickly become a tyrant much like injustice Superman. Hence the brilliant quote between Superman and Batman: “You made all these contingencies but never thought to make one for yourself?” “Of course I did, it’s the justice league” (Something like that)
I see a lot of people in this comment section and others talking about how if someone else in Gotham killed Joker, then Batman would simply let it happen, and I think those people are missing a critical piece of the “why Batman never kills the Joker?” Puzzle: that being he has a sense of responsibility towards the Joker, even if he denies it or doesn’t realize it. He is the only one he can allow to truly deal with the Joker, and if someone else pulls the trigger and he stands by to let it happen, then to him it’s the same as if he himself did it. That’s why he can never allow the Joker to die, and why the game of cat and mouse never ends.
In the comics, Joker was an ambassador for a European country by the time he killed Jason. If Batman DID break his no-kill rule, then an international conflict occurs. When he doesn't, then the events of Under the Red Hood/A Death in the Family happen. Also, Red Hood didn't hinder crime at all. He just became a mob boss and forced the other crime families to join him. That's all he becomes: a mob boss. He contributes to organized crime in the movie.
I'm not a comic nerd so there are lot of lore details I will miss, but I think my thoughts sums up pretty much everything I think is important to this dilemma: Batman's code makes sense from a personal standpoint. He's aware of his limits and takes personal responsibility to maintain this line he won't cross and I can get fully behind that. It's a very interesting character motivation and makes for an interesting story that delves into his psyche, but my problem starts when the code is regarded as a sound or even somewhat morally or ethically adequate . Batman's reasoning is primarily founded by is fear of losing control, not the actual ethical standpoint itself. It's basically that if he crosses the line, everything past that becomes scarily blurred to himself personally and it becomes a point of no return. Him killing people he wouldn't want becomes rather a moral consequence rather than the focus of his decision. It's more "Wrong things will happen if I cross that line and lose control" and not "I won't do it because I truly believe in my philosophy that killing no matter what is wrong". If Batman were to stick to the latter, I would have tons of issues, but most notable of them would be these questions: Does he not enable Joker? Is he not complicit in Joker's killings which are of mostly innocent people? This philosophy completely contradicts itself and it seems very reminiscent of the Tolerance Paradox. Batman's code seems more like an unfortunate fail-safe for his personal fear rather than a belief in itself. I think this code only works strictly as a storytelling tool embracing its innate flawed nature and not treated as a justifiable morality.
Him letting his villains live doesn't say that he stands for vengeance. Quite the opposite, actually. It says that they can murder AS MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE AS THEY WANT and he won't do anything to actually stop them. There comes a time in a person's life when they have to grow the hell up and accept that some people don't even WANT to be saved because they get off on the chaos, bloodshed and destruction
Batman has his code for a couple reasons and it’s not as simple as killing is wrong. Batman WANTS to kill the joker he knows how much suffering it would stop. But he’s afraid he wouldn’t stop after one. The next time riddler or the penguin have innocent lives at stake why not get rid of them too? And granted he’s still killing scum so it’s not that bad right? Well here’s the second reason and imo the biggest reason. He’s said it before in the comics if he killed joker his biggest fear is something worse, something even more twisted and evil would take his place. He views joker as the the lesser evil compared to what could replace him
Well what would batman tell the veterans of WW2 ... ?? His moral code is a joke when it comes to real life... he did't want to end apocalypse demons ...
Batman: If you kill a killer the number of killers stays the same. Jason: Well, what if you kill a mob family? Or you just mutilate a bunch of my bosses and show them to their lieutenants and then you give them standards? Batman: …….
I like how in Injustice Jason doesn’t agree with Superman or Batman. He says he feels Superman has gone way too far but he feels Batman should loosen up his rules.
That's because Superman tried to take over the world.
@@gpayne3728that wasn’t fair to Superman it’s all the jokers fault. One day is all it takes to drive the sanest of men insane.
@@oracle308Batman had one bad day and isn’t going around killing children or tryna take over the world sure he’s not as sane as before but he still understands u can’t let one bad day define u or break you no matter how much the memory hurts
@@oracle308say that to spiderman my gun hadn't a good day since I was born.
@@oracle308 Well it was that and Wonder Woman goading him into becoming more extreme. Injustice WW is considered one of the most despicable for good reason.
Batman: I’m not going to kill Anyone,
Red Hood: Fine I’ll just off these scumbags my self.
Red Hood: The Hero Gotham NEEDS!
@@theoutlawking9123 agreed
@@theoutlawking9123
Batman let the Joker run free so many times. This mofo killed a bunch of people.
I don't understand Batman's rules. I'm starting to think that this is just the way the author wants Batman to look like
@@dinhlien980 Oh definitely, it's because they're too lazy to create new villains, so they let the heroes spare them so they can keep reusing them. Problem is, it makes the heroes look Incompetent.
@@theoutlawking9123
Exactly. That's why DC heroes start to look like a bunch of clowns to me.
Don't get me wrong, even Marvel heroes look like that nowadays. Look at Thor, in the new movie with Natalie port-person in it. He looked like the absolute joke of the joker.
The only person that looks believable enough, is The Punisher.
Even Ironman is evil as hell(Just take a look at axis comic, where heroes like Tony Stark literally poisoned people to get profit), and he ain't the hero on the screen.
For me, I just like watching Kengan Ashura nowadays and be like "No, thank you" to the whole DC and Marvel thing
Batman: I'm not gonna kill anyone. Not even the Joker.
Injustice Superman: Fine, I'll do it, myself.
Worst example
In all honesty, Joker kind of deserved it in the Injustice universe. He's already done a lot of messed up shit, but drugging Superman into thinking Lois is Doomsday, trick him into killing her in orbit, with his unborn son mind you, and placing a trigger in her heart the moment it stopped beating to completely destroy Metropolis and kill MILLIONS more people? Yeah, I think it's suffice to say that Joker went WAY too far and should have been executed right on the spot. I don't blame Superman for being angry and killing him in a blind rage. Cause if that happened to me, I'd probably do the same.
@@dragonman2168
Yeah, I don't blame Clark for that either.
I would've snapped at and killed the Joker for that too.
@joshuahughes3377 If only New Jersey had the death penalty. Then Joker would have been executed a long time ago. I say New Jersey because that's the state Gotham City is in the DC Universe.
@@dragonman2168
I agree with that.
Although some of the fans will probably beg for them to bring Joker back the writers probably will.
Bc comics.
It's good that Batman doesn't want to kill anyone, but not everyone is gonna agree with Batman's motives.
I’m glad dtoo
90% of TH-cam Users seem to fall under that category...
...I am in the other 10% that prefers Batman not by a copy of The Punisher (we have Elseworld Stories for THAT.)
Just use Thomas Wayne if they want a Batman that kills lol
@@nugget3327That’s true
He totally wants to kill some. But he restrains himself
Batman: I don't kill people. I don't use guns. I don't use guns to kill people.
Red Hood: Allow me to introduce myself.
Batman: I don't use guns.
The Batmobile: Allow me to introduce myself.
@@vanillabatcave5677 Exactly, he doesn't use guns but all his vehicles carry them, such a fucking hypocrite.
Honestly his code makes a whole lot of sense in a realistic sense, like in our system a lot of the villains would get the death sentence/virtually impossible conditions to escape, but Batman can't kill because he would literally be changed from a Vigilante to another criminal that the cops need to watch more
Good point
Yeah the real issue would be the justice system if they constantly allowed the joker to leave scott free after many successful attempts of leaving arkham asylum
@@GenesisBoioh come on dude, we all know Joker only hangs out in Arkham until he gets bored, it may as well be a retreat for the criminally insane of Gotham 😒😒😒
@@LadyLeomon it basically is! Free housing, meals and entertainment xD
@@GenesisBoi 2 outta 3 I think, why would he ever want to leave if he had all three of those? He leaves to visit his Nocturnal Echo-locating Flying Mammal bro whenever he’s bored 🤣🤣🤣
At least what Jason said about not killing any other villain EXCEPT the Joker is 100% reasonable. If you kill someone like Black Mask or Penguin, someone within their faction will just replace them. But there isn't anyone else like Joker, even other psychotics like Zsasz. In Arkham City they knew Joker was dying, so nothing changed. But if they found out Batman straight up killed Joker, that would scare even the toughest of them to their core that the next time they get into a fight with Bats, they may not be going to prison.
or... well nothing would change, and they'ed just follow harley. (most of them do because they wanna stick the key into the ignition, yes but alot of joker's men are loyal either through trauma or some really sick form of love, Anger is really good motivator for doing something stupid. And deep down they know Batman didn't really kill joker. Even his thugs say as much "He's going to kill us like he did joker!"
"By withholding Medicine?"
But the problem with only killing Joker is the people that support Batman will question why he didn't kill the others. "You kill the joker but you won't put down black mask" .
Yeah man he just wants his killer killed!
My main issue about Batman's morality isn't so much that he doesn't kill, his logic is sound and I respect that, it's how preachy he is about it and how he wants to enforce it on Jason even though the logic doesn't fully carry over on that front.
It would make a lot more sense if the two agreed to collaborate and make compromise with one another : Red Hood holds off about killing people and let's Batman try his method of trying to rehabilitate (but truly this time, like not just throwing people in Arkham and calling it a day, like help people such as Killer Croc and Mr Freeze to get out of the loop) but then pass the relay to Jason once he knows that the villain in front of him is beyond saving.
That way Batman keeps his morality and can help mitigate the potential excesses of Jason but Jason still can carry out his justice against the worst of the worst.
Though we all why something like that isn't implemented and the fake conflict is kept : they want a reason to have the Joker keep coming back despite how all logic should dictate that Batman let's Jason pick at least this one
Me too. He pushes away so many potential allies like Red Hood and Huntress because of his dedication to making sure that no other heroes kill.
@@jagnestormskull3178they had this backfire in gods of monsters. Because they’re so willingly to kill who is to say they wouldn’t exert that stretch of authority for their own gain? Not that they did, however how can the public trust you if you were innocent? How can people trust that wouldn’t be used on them at some point?
In the end it isn’t about Morality. It’s about villain popularity. Manga can get away with killing baddies because it’s a story. Not a weekly event. They need (x) alive for future issues.
@@DarkEclipse23 And in a lot of stories, the people of Gotham aren't on the side of the no-kill vigilantes either.
Yeah, but then, Batman is still complicit in the killing of whomever he chooses to leave to Jason. There really is no middle ground between their ideologies because the only difference between the two is whether the perpetrators go to prison or the morgue.
The real question should be:HOW TF JOKER HAVENT GOTTEN A DEATH PENALTY BY THE COURT?
Look at our justice system today. Sadly that's probably the case in Gotham.
That's what I've been asking.
I think it's cause the person who apprehended him and was basically a witness to the crimes he's committed,that being batman,is a vigilante aka he can't exactly testify in court against joker,unlike an official representative/enforcer of the law aka a cop for instance,tht and the fact joker displays signs of mental issues despite the fact hes actually super sane,as in he knows for a fact he's a comic book character,like imagine u wake up one day and discover ur a character in a show or movie,meanin whatever u do it won't matter,but ofc the justice system of Gotham doesn't understand sucha concept so they mark him as "criminally insane" that combined with the whole batman can't testify in court bit,are the reason why joker doesn't end up in blackgate awaiting execution,why he always ends up at an asylum not a supermax prison
It's extra weird to me because i swear joker has more than once broadcast his crimes
It takes place in New Jersey which got rid of its death penalty. At least in the apparent county Gotham is in.
Better question: how many good cops does Gotham have? Not a single cop ever said "Enough from the clown" *BANG!!!* blows Joker's brains out. I understand Wayne and Gordon fighting crime "by the book" but there's no way every cop shares those niceties.
Pretty sure Aaron Cash is from the comics too
*You can't stop crime. That's what you never understood. I'm controlling it. You wanna rule them by fear, but what do you do with the ones who aren't afraid?*
That line from Batman: Under the Red Hood makes me question of whether or not there are flaws within Batman's moral code and Jason has every right to take that is more beneficial but could potentially lead a darker route for the formal Boy Wonder.
This is a moral ambiguity situation when the lines of good and evil become very blur.
So he wants to start a cartel? That's is bullshit.
"but what do you do with the ones who aren't afraid?" Cripple them in front of the leaders of the ones who are afraid and make them into examples. Still living. _Only_ still living.
@@midgetydeathBut Batman can’t even do that. His rogues gallery are those top people who need to be crippled in front of everyone.
there is no moral ambiguity when fighting evil
@@zionmarcelothat's a very dangerous view point that's how the punisher justifies the horrible shit he sometimes does
Punisher kills ppl and yet he doesn't make any meaningful change cause the writers can't allow him to kill any of the major villains.
not really, Punisher regularly takes down major crime organization and bosses, it's just that there are some guys that manage to squeeze past his bullets but he still has an effect (just that the vacuums he leaves are filled rather quickly by others, whom he kills).
Anti-Heroes should be used to kill pre-existing villains who aren't used very often, or are unnecessary.
Or some villains for hires should be allowed to kill Heroes who aren't popular or utilised often.
Like, imagine a RedHood story where he is hunting down DollMaker. Or a DeathStroke story where he successfully kills Tempest.
the batman /punisher deadly knights crossover comics
he can't cause Punisher is a bitch and a coward
Don't forget how Jason said he wasn't going to k!ll every criminal just those that are way beyond redemption or control
Joker is one of those villians that needs to be put down yet batman won't do it or let anyone else do it
@ThuanVong-uh1di oh they'd love him especially punisher, he'd also join if not lead the thunderbolts and no i don't think he'd join the regime that's a step to far even for him
And yeah we can Blame batman foe these choices Gotham has been close to point blank genocide by several villians and batman chooses to just lock them up, even when Harley who's someone that has been redeemed told batman to k!ll the joker, he still couldn't do it and it took Harley to make that decision for him
Except Jason has already killed and beheaded thugs in his effort to control crime.
@Rengokuo4o6 yes to send a message
I mean he is indirectly responsible for the thousands of deaths in Gotham because of his code and bad thing about him is that he does push his no kill code on to others and make sure they follow his code and the whole thing where he talking to Jason on how if he every were to kill even once he'll never come back from the brink so basically all i heard was you have no self control batman even if it was to save Gotham city you wouldn't kill that why don't like batman per say because if came down to saving Gotham or saving the Joker which would pick also that why i like heroes like green arrow or red hood because there not afraid to do what necessary if come down too saving some or the world
@@thunderlion6909 true but Batman know that vigilantism is a crime and also it canon well kinda in most universes and also Batman have no rights but I prefer spider man than Batman atleast peter willing to kill when it a last resort
Batman: Under the Red Hood was one of the best Batman movies I've ever seen.
i don't understand why the f the death sentence isn't a thing in the dc universe.
the joker is doing some Saddam Husain stuff and getting into some super breakable Jail instead if the death row.
One word; magic.
Even death can't stop everyone in dc. That's why you put them in a cell. If they escape from jail, you're just fighting a guy that escaped from jail. If you kill them, and they come back, you're dealing with one zombie, at best.
@@ricochet1351Try telling that to Danny Chase. Or the first Blue Beetle.
Being fair in the Arkham universe at some point there was a death penalty in Batman Arkham origins calendar man was about to be executed little before the first riot in blackgate.
@@marygonzalez2472 that's why I said it doesn't stop EVERYONE.
@@ricochet1351Not what I meant. They both died. And yet they still didn't come back.
Fun fact: In the comics, Batman laughed when a young Jason Todd stole the tires off the Batmobile.
what? The hells he gonna do with those wheels? Was it a prank? He gonna sell em?
@@drysoup3017he was exactly going to try to sell them he was broke
@@drysoup3017Is he stupid?
To simplify it Jason Todd Red Hood is pretty much us tired of dealing with Bruce Wayne Batman's no kill code.
When it comes to rehabilitation, the main thing with that is, YOU have to want to get better. Everytime Batman puts his rouges gallery in Arkham, they don't try to better themselves, they wait to get out, wether it's a break out or by other means. Batman trying to give them the chance to change is squandered cause they don't wanna get better, they wanna keep being who they are. I think it's very interesting to think about and I love Jason and he will always be my favorite.
We should be asking how does joker avoid the death sentence, batman doesnt want to kill personally but im sure he'll be eating popcorn watching his switch being flipped in the electric chair
Because crazy.
And likely incompetence.
Because joker makes dc $$$.
Lemme paint u a pic : imagine u bein a shrink or psychologist or wtever,and u see joker who's basically "super sane" as in he understands and realizes he's a fictional character in a comic book,thts legit the reason why joker despite all his "insanity" can still form complex plans,why he displays some symptoms of other mental illnesses yet doesn't fit the bill for any of them,like thts a whole ass rabbit hole for any psychologist,so they just mark him as "criminally insane" cause tryina understand joker means u have to b as super sane as he is,hell even Martian manhunter an honest to God Martian collapsed whn he tried to read jokers mind at some point
Robot chicken did a skit like this
I would say that the real problem is the corruption in Gotham.
Pretty sure that with all the crimes that he committed, he wouldn't just go to a prison in Gotham or to a asylum that isn't that secure
Bruce also made Wayne corporation the backbone of Gotham and his unwillingness to use his power to push for reform, or his own “corruption”, so to speak, that will guarantee that the criminals that need to be disposed of are, it just shows his hypocrisy, because he literally does have the power on both sides of the coin to make an actual impact, but he’s going to use his fallacy in one to fuel the other and as a result, nothing accomplished, and it’s just status quo ad infinitum. He’s just playing tic-tac-toe on the chessboard of Gotham and is wondering why nothing is being accomplished when he’s knows he’s not playing by the rules necessary to win.
"You either die a Hero, or live long enough to see yourself become a Villain"
All you have to do is ask the dark knight returns batman. He would agree with Jason. Remember his words to the joker. "All the people I've killed by letting you live."
Dark Knight returns Batman wouldn't agree. In the moment he wanted to kill the Joker but he didn't in the end and Joker killed himself. That quote doesn't mean he'd actually agree especially outside of that one moment
@@jlpgaminok you clearly didn't read the dark knight return comics 1 joker didn't kill himself batman did because the whole joker broke his neck and taiking before he die was only happening in batman mind because the last word of joker taiking before killing himself was in gray bubble text and the things is only batman gray bubble text because eveytime he taik inside his mind or outside(sometime) it show a gray bubble text instead of green(this already tell you that batman has kill him by broken his neck and even after joker die he sit beside his dead body and say shut up to the joker where he is already dead all of this tell you batman has kill him ) and 2 doing one of batman comic runs batman(the batman who lost his arm and replaced it with a iron arm ) he was going to so many other universes like arkham batman universe and the other movies universes he go to the dark knight return universe and say he didn't like that a batman has broke his code and has no guilt of killing the joker and in the dark knight return comic Bruce say that he regret not killing joker sooner and is a fool for believing someone like the joker can be redeem
@@jlpgamin you’re straight up wrong. He did kill Joker, so if there’s one person he would agree to killing it’s Joker
No, he would still disagree considering he told the mutants gang that guns are a coward’s weapon and told them to not kill anyone.
@cosmicspider9132 in the comic your literally referring to Dark Knight Returns Batman tells main Batman that he didn't kill him and that he killed himself so your straight up wrong it wasn't in his mind it was real
I have a relevant counter to the whole "Why did Batman not kill the Joker.", which is _"Why does the Joker not just get executed at this point, he SHOULD have earned the death penalty."._ Every. Single. Time. People discuss Bruce's moral code as Batman, they never discuss about why the Gotham Justice system keeps letting bad guys like the Joker out, why he keeps going to 'Arkham Asylum' instead of a proper prison.
Mind you, the Batman HAS tried to kill the Joker a few times, but in almost every case the Joker escaped or survived. Batman's code is to stop him from becoming like Ra's Al Ghul, someone who kills because they 'could' become a threat. Batman isn't the only piece that is broken in the justice system of Gotham, technically he isn't even a part of said system. But it shouldn't be on some lone person to decide who lives and who dies.
Mind you Jason completely failed, he could have chosen to shoot Joker, rather then trying to shoot Batman. He had the chance to stop the biggest villain, but instead tried to end the one guy in the room who DIDN'T kill anyone. Batman was right with his code, as Jason went so far into his murderpath, that he skipped over the guy who killed him, to punish the guy who merely failed to protect him.
then you have to question the 'intent' of the woke writers who prevent batman from killing, prevent the justice system to eliminate these monsters, and continue this messed up situation forever
In the Audio Adventures, Mayor Hill is corrupt
Isn't joker already a threat though? Multiple times over?
@@zionmarcelothey been woke almost 100 years? Or it's easier to not kill your iconic villains than make new iconic villains. Just a though
@@misuvittupaa8068 yes the woke has been with us for a long time but they known by other names: libs, hippies, flower people, socialist, communist, anti-gun, anti death penalty, free sex(but they changed their tune now), more 'humane' society, 'progressives', etc those kind of people
Batman doesnt k!ll..he just leaves u at 1HP,and the hospital bills will surely k!ll u 😂🤣💀
I Love how much of a Utilitarian and a Realist Jason is!
This is why I Love "Batman: Under the Red Hood" and the Red Hood being Morally Ambiguous and being the Anti-Hero, and also it's because he is Limiting the Harm and Crime as much as Realistically Possible, Especially him Commandeering the Top of the Hierarchy in the Favour of making sure that the Innocent are not Harmed, or at the very Least Minimised it!
And also; it's one of my Favourite DC Movies!
I agreed, he's playing the Judge, Jury, & Executioner which that's how it works in real life!
@@kainonknestrick9202 Exactly!
Jason Todd is an example of a resurrected character done right
Until DC editoral nerfs him to high heaven and makes him "non-leathal"...and yet continues to buff Nightwing everytime a world reset, reformat, crisis happens.
Batman is an idealist not an optimist really, that's the word you're looking for.
He's an enabler
One thing that comes to my mind about this.
I can understand batman not killing, however, any smart person like batman should be would still at least take extra steps to prevent joker for harming people.
When you fail or make a mistake, it is natural to learn from said failure/mistake and improve things so that that failure doesn't happen again.
The fact that the joker and all the other criminals escape all the time should be common knowledge to improve the prison or put them in a better prison so that they can't escape (or at the very less, it would be much harder to escape) again
But he consistently does. The problem is Gotham is too corrupt despite Bruce consistently going after those at the top on top of super villains. It's why Joker even got out in the movie because of corruption
the court just gotta give joker a death sentence and have it happen as soon as possible same thing with all of batmans other major villians and i think the problem is going to start to fix itself with the corruption
@@godlygaming4844but then you run into the issue of Argus and Amanda Waller who aren’t just gonna let villains get executed. In JLU DCAU’s version of Deadshot was sentenced to death. He had his last meal and was about to be put to death when orders from on high pardoned him and allowed him to go free so he could be apart of Task Force X.
So much for being the 'smartest man alive'. The dude is so dumb that he doesn't realize that his villains use his 'moral code' to kill over and over again because they know that, when it comes down to it, Bruce will NEVER drop the hammer on them regardless of how many innocent throats they slash
@jeremyallen5974 that logic goes for any hero who have villains that cause massive deaths. You can't blame Batman for the justice system choosing to keep them alive
Batman knows that there are people who deserve to die, but he refuses to do it himself, so he leaves it to the people to do it themselves. Because Batman will never return once he kills. That's why when Jason made him choose between him or the Joker, he walked away, not because he was avoiding the decision, but because he was letting Jason kill Joker himself if that's what he needed. Of course, Red Hood misinterprets and tries to get Batman to not walk away. This is the only time he'll let Red Hood go because he has a point, but that doesn't make him right as he would still criticise Jason's motives. This is why I prefer crime lord Red Hood to vigilante Hood because he understood much more than Bruce will ever will.
As much as I love Batman…Jason’s not really doing anything morally wrong. Sure, killing is wrong, but he’s not evil or corrupted. He was hurt and got sick of people like the Joker running around freely. It’s hard to say because both sides are right.
Well, mostly Jason, who is in the right.
@@jarielwilliams9856 Very true
Red Hood's code is more realistic while Batman's is plain Idealistic!
In all honesty, I feel it truly boils down to Batman knowing once he crosses that line, his judgement will become to clouded, making him unstoppable in one of the worst ways.
Batman’s code is fine. 100%
But why doesn’t GOTHAM do anything about these guys? The death penalty does exist.
1-Money and Lazy writers, heck it why the No kill code was even given to Batman, because the writers got sick of Joker surviving death scarnios
2-In some continuity it actually Bruce Wayne who prevents Gotham from re introducing the death penalty, personal I find this to be one of the worst concepts to even be introduced in Batman story, because at this point Batman is literally the problem
3-Corruption in the government
@@gameover9390 You don't even realistically need the death penalty. Just get an actually secure prison where the police will shoot if you escape and send Joker there instead of Arkham. Joker's already done worse than a lot of metahumans, so put him in somewhere like Slabside so he'll be stuck in Antarctica even if he tries to escape or Bruce could even just use his money to make a new prison.
The main reason these guys dont get the chair is specifically because they end up at Arkham. Which is an insane asylum. They are ruled incompetent to stand trial or not guilty due to insanity. If they are incompetent or insane, they cannot be executed. This is also why they break out so often, as Arkham isn't an actual prison. The fact that, in many continuities, Arkham is run by Hugo Strange (who treats the whole thing like one big petri dish) doesn't help matters much.
@@tanall5959 Okay, if someone makes up plans and continues to commit the same kind of crimes, they’re not insane.
@@tanall5959 Even then most of Batman's villains aren't even actually legally insane.
I’ve always had a problem with Batman’s code
I like how in the scene where Jason points a gun at Joker and says "him or me", Batman just walks away. Batman wasn't walking away because he was looking for Jason to hesitate and drop his guard; if he did, great! He was walking away because he couldn't stop Jason.
Nyssa called out Batman in Arkham Knight the same way if he revive Ra’s because he’s not a killer. “And you think that means there’s no blood on your hands?” As much as I love Batman I do believe his code is flawed. There are people in this world who will do incalculable amounts of damage to the lives of the innocent & defenseless if left alive. I remember what Alfred told him in the Dark Knight about the Joker, “Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn!" If evil has no limits but good is tied down with restrictions then evil will prevail.
I agree with Jason if he put down a lot of the big villains in Gotham and replaced them with controllable criminals whom he can control and manipulate, he could eliminate crime to a minor percentile the revolving door in Arkham has proven itself time and time again to be a flawed system when people like the Joker or the riddler can easily break out and start a huge plot that ends up killing a lot of people
Then that's just controlled crime which is still crime
@@redninja3056 yeah but controlled crime is alot less dangerous to the citizens of gotham
@@redninja3056I rather have controlled crime that is in the small percentile than have crime that is in batshit high percentile. You have too look at this as cold numbers to save more lives, well that was what I was thought.
@PapaWerserian I rather have no crime at all honestly
@@redninja3056 that is a statistical impossibility. There will always be crimes one way or the other, be it from a material stand point or a moral one. It is best to be realistic on things like crime.
The issue has never been with Batman. Its with the parody justice system. Not even a broken one, just, parody, which comes down to either playing along with the parody and not taking Batman stories seriously or being critical. Red Hood should honestly be going after literally everyone else than trying to prove a point to Batman
To be fair in Batman's own words he said I want to torture and end Joker but after I do that allowing myself to go down into the place I will never come back which means he can't judge people for killing not only that but he believes that he would not be any different than Joker or Joe chill which is why even though he lost Jason Todd there for Red Hood he wouldn't kill anyone. Plus Red Hood killing is just what he was meant to be in my opinion and I love it.
The correct question we should ask is why the Justice system in dc doesn't give the villains a death sentence
Or the various off-the-books groups like Task Force X. Like, if Waller really existed, no way she doesn't order somebody to kill the Joker.
The question people SHOULD be asking is why he still clings to the delusion that leaving his villains to a shitty criminal justice system will make them 'change their ways' when he is shown time and again that all it amounts to is an ever growing pile of innocent corpses in the rear view mirror
Moral of the DC story is the criminals in Gotham is batman personal punching bags. Superman known that for years and when batman didn't fall in line he took all of his punching bags away by putting them in a impenetrable prison.
I think to a certain degree Batman is correct, but when someone goes to the extreme like the Joker, Red Hood is right. When you are too far gone and have no desire to change like the Joker. I think you should be killed. The Joker has taken away so many lives, and all he does is break out just to do it again. So, going as far as Joker levels of crime where he never really changes. Yes. He should be the one exception to the no kill rule.
Good video, and I like your comment about how it might be better to kill the nonredeemable criminals like the Joker. However, that isn't the main reason why Batman doesn't kill. In fact, there is a rebuttal about that in the movie itself. After asked why he didn't kill the Joker by Jason, Batman says that he is unable to not because of any moral code, but because of his (Bruce's) moral failing. Batman is aware that if he lets himself kill once, he would entirely unravel and become a monster. You can see it very easily if you look at other Batman media (like the Justice League: Doom movie or the Tower of Babel comic) that Bruce has the potential to be a very nasty supervillain, so the fact that he has guardrails in place to prevent him from becoming a monster is a pretty good thing.
I know you're a comic casual so you might not know this, but there is a bit in a comic where Batman talks about why he is proud of each of his proteges. In it, Batman says he is proud of Jason because he can make the decisions the Bruce can't, and can cross lines Bruce is unable to while keeping a moral code. I think that is the biggest difference between Jason and Bruce. For Bruce, the no killing must be cast iron or he risks becoming a monster, while Jason is mentally sane enough to be able to keep his morality after doing what Bruce thinks of as the ultimate sin. As such, Batman's moral code is great for people who due to past trauma or a willingness to take things too far, need guardrails while Red Hood's philosophy is great for people who are in control enough to not slip.
ok🤫🤫🤫
The ironic thing is, Red Hood himself is a testament to why you don't kill your enemies; because death didn't stop him, and it only made him angrier.
Faaacts😂 Death in DC doesn't mean squat if the villains keep coming back😂
@dekaritheprofessor2631 Yes, you only end up losing you soul.
@@Rengokuo4o6 Yuuup!!
Personally, if some super villain killed my kid and I was a vigilante that already technically worked outside the law, nothing and no one is gonna be able to save that super villain from my wrath no moral code would stop me from avenging my kid.
If Batman listened to Red hood, Superman's wife, child, and Metropolis would all still be alive.....
If batman listened to red hood plastic man would be dead, harley Quinn would've never been turned to good, most petty criminals would be killed and superman would've stopped batman anyway
Honestly, red hood is a walking, talking Grey area character.
The same Superman that kept Batman from killing the Joker after Jason died
Injustice Jason wasn't Red hood until after Injustice 1 if I remember correctly
@@redninja3056 bro we aren't talking about injustice style Batman where everyone dies, we talking about just the worst of the worst criminals which was Red Hoods whole point....
"So that's what i've become, maybe i'm better of dead"
-Jason Todd (in Red Hood and The Out-Laws)
I feel Batman's moral code would work, if the justice system in Gotham actually worked. I recall reading from a comment on a different video (about a year ago, I don't remember the specific comment/video x.x) - that the issue is how Gotham's justice system doesn't give the death sentence to criminals responsible for mass murder, destruction, etc. Batman's moral code would work fine - capture the criminals and let the justice system decide. However, the justice system itself is either completely wacky, or corrupt to a severe point to allow these criminals to continue terrorizing innocents. To the point really that in Batman's universe, Jason is right. If the justice system fails to properly punish and end such extreme criminals, then what's the point of capturing them to begin with?
tldr; Batman's moral code would work with a non-corrupted justice system. Jason's works with the corrupt justice system Gotham has.
Wait till you read the comic version, where Batman literally slits Jason’s throat.
Honestly I agreed with Jason plan to control crime and that Batman doesn't need to kill all his villains just kill joker
Honestly if Joker didn’t have plot armor Jason would have killed him the second Batman started to walk away.
red hood kinda remind me of the line of joshua graham "i don't enjoy killing but when done righteusly it becomes a chore"
Honestly when seeing red hood it only reenforced batman's moral code in my mind and why he shouldn't and couldn't fall down that slippery slope
Batman would become the terror of Gotham if any and all criminals lose their life the moment they are in that situation. The innocent would immediately get clipped as the villains would know batman won't let them off easy so more chaos and violence would occur.
Plus any and all reformed villains would not get that chance to be free. We got the ventriloquist who can reform many times. riddler in some storylines where he becomes a good guy. Harley a few times and so on.
And Jason wouldn't be a robin or red hood in the first place because he was a kid trying to steal the wheels off the batmobile
Did the opposite for me. I don't mind a little optimism for rehabilitation, but, there's only so many times that villain can be: Batman stops villain, sends them to Arkham, come out, kill another hundred or so people, Batman stops villain rinse and repeat. From what I read, Gotham takes place in New Jersey, which doesn't have Capital Punishment....So this is just causing more harm than good overtime. Yes, some characters got redeemed, but those stories are few and far between.
Some criminals need to get iced as a last resort, and this is why I prefer Superman/Spiderman. They ice their gallery when they know when they have no other options. Batman is over here saving a *terrorist* from ending his own life while he gleefully laughs as he falls off a building on purpose. When people say "Batman should kill X", they don't mean common mook/thugs, they mean people who clearly don't want to rehabilitate themselves.
@@Lonewolfprime. See that mindset you have? It's dangerous for anyone to have. Spiderman doesn't ice villains same with superman as much as you are saying. They are opposite same with batman. Sounds like you just want to dislike batman and make an excuse at the same time. Superman starts ending foes. Boom he's dictator in a second. Spiderman does it. He's venom and carnage. Not sure why you think injustice superman or carnage are heroes by that mentality.
Plus you are missing the point of why heroes shouldn't take the law into their hand(read civil war) The slippery slope mentality leads to people thinking "well I can do it too since the hero is praised for it" and it will lead to civil unrest instantly by making excuses from major villains who end lives to people smoking who btw end more lives than super villains (read the chess scene in injustice) so they should go around ending smokers and j walkers and such to make a "good society"
But that's just me knowing an eye for an eye is a bad mentality to have. Same with any villain turning good and saving lives which we have seen many times before but removing the chance to fix yourself up by just popping heads(justice league unlimited)
@@ivanbluecool nice try: but injustice Superman only happened *because* of Wonder Woman, and Batman abandoned Superman instead of sticking by him like an actual true friend and trying to reset Clark on the right path. As soon as he killed Joker, what does Batman do? He LEFT. He didn’t even bother talking to him if memory serves me well. Also, what do you mean “Superman doesn’t ice villains”. He’s done it to Brainaic, Doomsday(that or he phantom zones him, something that Batman also has an issue with). He even done it to Parasite once, but in each of these cases, it was a last resort….and he *stayed good*. Spider-Man started killing as well, but he didn’t become venom or carnage: he only got rid of the worst of the worst and stopped there. I’m not hating on Batman: I’m criticizing his moral code, when other heroes *have* killed and shown to still be doing good. Even Wonder Woman kills as a last resort, yet she doesn’t go on a killing spree. You can’t just name one instance(which is Batman’s fault for not handling The Joker. He could have kept him locked up in a secure batcave and none of Injustice would have happened, and thus wouldn’t break his kill rule). I don’t agree with Injustice Superman, he went complete dictatorship and killed a kid for questioning him. Normal Superman kills but only if that threat is at very last resort, and continues to jail others just fine.
No, a hero’s job is to prevent as much damage as possible from the villain. I don’t mind you giving villains chances of rehabilitation, but how many times has Joker been locked up, did the insanity plea, break out, and cause more PTSD to more innocent people? My mindset isn’t dangerous: it’s a logical conclusion from what I and others have seen. Some people just can’t change, and those people are better off not here. Either we put them in max confinement, or we axe them. Either way, they’re doing less harm.
Did I say I want an eye for an eye? No. I’m alll for rehabilitation: but that takes the criminal to want to undergo that and reform themselves. I say give them a good amount of chances, but if they aren’t changing, and still killing millions, then that’s when we need a different last resort answer. Superman has done this(Brainaic) and didn’t lose his sh!t. He was still putting away lesser threats into prison for rehabilitation. Do you see what I mean now? Riddler may have changed in a storyline or two, but in main continuity, he breaks out and still plays riddle games with innocents.
You can’t just keep doing the same thing, some people just don’t want to change.
@@Lonewolfprime. I agree, which is the reason why I have a problem with other series like Naruto. Like, bruh, if someone who is in power thinks that Friendships and love can fix literal wars, mass genocides aftermaths, and literal countries in ruins because of so many crimes and corrupt leaders, then I'm sorry but they deserve to rot in hell.
While I can agree that Bats should never do it, because how insane he is, I have a problem with him projecting it onto others, and like you should let people just do it, either government or heroes/vigilantes. Like, I watch how Bats literally have spied on heroes all just to make sure they don't turn bad. Even the Injustice acknowledge that Jason is literally the best of both Bats and Sups in terms of how actual heroin works since at that point, its pointless for both sides.
Batman keeps young boys in a cave and has them wear a costume do a show on that tough guy.
How come everyone talks about Red hood making us question batman's moral code, but anarky did that in the comics first and nobody talks about it? He was red hood before red hood was red hood.
Red Hood was the first to do it well
@@breakfaith3031 But anarky did it first. Jason was still dead when Lonnie came onto the scene.
@@Ash-Winchester and? He was never a great or even good villain. Better for him to be forgotten than a stain on the red hoods legacy.
If it's not clear, I call him a stain because the biggest thing he contributes to DC is making Jason ever so slightly less original.
@@breakfaith3031 "He was never a great or even good villain."
Maybe that's because he was never a villain. He's an anti hero that makes you question the meaning of the word criminal and gets you to realize that wayne is actually the bad guy. And how he can be a stain on red hood's legacy when he was active *before* jason became red hood?
@@Ash-Winchester he wasn't a good anti hero and the only thing he made me think was how disappointing he was.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit I see. He's a stain on Jason's legacy because he came first. His existence makes the red Hood less original.
Earth 2 Bruce is proof of how dumb that no kill rule is.
i think the justice system in dc is equally to blame, jocker wouldve been executed by now lmao
Gotham Judicial system: "Yeah! Its his fault! Get his ass!"
I have to give you props because you took me on a roller coaster ride of I agree with Batman then I agree with Red Hood then I agree with Batman again. Absolutely a great video. Genuinely well done.
In the movie, Batman did admit that he really wants to kill the Joker but that he can't because he won't be able to come back from it.
Some people need stark moral lines to help them control their darker impulses; any exception to those lines could be unconsciously taken as permission to abandon them entirely. I think Batman is like that. If he kills the Joker, then he would lose his carefully cultivated control over his rage and he would probably have a harder time finding reasons not to kill someone.
On the other hand, some people don't need those lines. Some people can walk on the morally gray side without stumbling into becoming evil. I think Jason is one of those.
I don't think that either type of person is stronger than the other. I think Batman and Jason are complimentary to each other because each can do what the other cannot; Jason can kill when Batman can't, but Batman can be the light that Jason has lost.
The reason Joker can’t break Batman is the same reason Batman can’t rehabilitate Joker. They’re both completely obsessed with their ideals and beyond the hope of returning to a normal life.
When Jason came out of the pit he was completely insane and killed alot of ppl around, Ra's had to ease his mind back hence why he seems more normal.
You know if a person such as joker got redeemed he would do many good things with his high iq and batman goes for this possibility
what i love about the whole redhood story is that they both cant succeed batman cant stop crime while redhood cant redeem them
Sometimes, someone needs to "go" for things to change, Assassin's Creed is a prime example. Look what happens when Ezio let Rodrigo Borgia lives, and it backfired. Something similar between Batman and Joker, which always backfired when Batman let him live.
i have never of that is a game
@@rayshawnwilliams5673 What? Your sentence, can you fix it? I can't understand you. No offense
@@RholynjayLim ok
Let's be real, Gotham should've given the Joker the death penalty at this point
The feds, the cia, every black ops organization on the planet would be out for Jokers head
Batman doesn't wish to kill people, he wishes to torture them.
I love how I see this video the day after watching Under The Red Hood for the first time
the most important thing is it made us think.
kill joker = 1 death
don't kill -> joker goes to prison -> joker escapes (maybe a few months later. let's say 3 - 4 times a year) -> each time the joker kills at least a dozen people before being caught again (at the very least) = let's say about 30 - 50 deaths a year
not to mention all the psychological traume or the countless injured people
Love red hood as a character, but yeah, he’s a criminal.
The thing that always bothered me on top of Batman’s skewed moral code is his favoritism. When the joker killed Jason, Batman just beat the joker up. When Batgirl was paralyzed and humiliated by the Joker, Batman didn’t do much. But when Greyson was hurt by KGBeast Batman almost killed the dude. Broke KGBeasts with the grappling gun in a desperate move. And for Damien, Batman turned himself in a man-bat to fight Talia’s army and then went on a campaign to fight Darksied on Apokolyse to bring Damnien back to life.
im sensing there a pattern forming here 🤔🤔🤔
which is what exxactly
Red Hood is the best character in DC, and DC ignore him.
if batman wanted to kill he would become a monster, he doesn't kill cause its not his decision its the law's decision once he does the hard work of capturing them
From a utilitarian perspective, the red hood is 100% in the right imo
There is a lot of arguments over moral philosophy but Jason's method would just create more structured crime organization and if he is remove then he just created a harder criminal environment to get rid of.
I think the pit only makes you crazy if you use it over and over again
I agree that Batman shouldn't kill, but I do think there are heros that should kill, like Batman said if he killed he wouldn't stop, Jason Todd seems to be able to control himself and kill when needed rather than just cause
So something you don't bring up that i think helps explain batmans code is something between them.
"What, would it be to hard to kill?!"
"No! God no! It'd be to damn easy, there isn't a day that goes by that i don't consider ending his life."
Batman could kill, he could, and there are definitely those he wants to, like the joker. But Batman knows that should be cross that line, he more then likely would never come back. Because once he's justified killing once, even if it's someone as understandable as the joker, then it becomes easier and easier to justify killing the not as bad next person on the list, and then the next one, till he's willing to snap the necks of petty drug peddlers.
Now Ironically there are a number of versions of Jason todd/red hood that actually prove this logic flawed as they kill at first but become non-lethal when they rejoin the bat family. Now this could be something that Bruce doesn't think he has the capacity to withstand or just is right that he specifically could never come back across that line. That being said realistically he would never need to, some other villain type or criminal, a disgruntled civilian or hell a cop of questionable moral character would of put the joker down after his second escape from arkham given his pension for mass murder. The only reason this doesn't happen is cause the joker's to familar to be killed, comics sort of have that issue where they have a hard time with killing off characters that realistically should be while also turning around and slaughtering characters that have no reason outside of 'raising the stakes' or 'low sales'
If Batman killed, and didn’t loose his mental state and self motivation, Gotham would be one of the safest places next to metropolis imo
Would you want to get all your bones broken piece by piece. and the last thing you see is Batman throwing you off a building and not catching you. Ending your life.
Or
Be a good sport? 🤣
Remember people batman dosen't kill but he can break every bone in your body
batman is right about never killing anyone because if you kill someone, you're just as bad as the person who made you kill
Batman's code isn't the problem, rather it's how it's portrayed by modern writers that's the issue, having Zack Snyder get pissy because DC didn't want a killer Batman on screen says less about the character and more about the one writing him, also that can go the other way with Batman being portrayed as unreasonable and going to insane lengths to save the Joker even if it means dying himself, what needs happen is someone should ask why Gotham hasn't executed the Joker yet, like Red Hood said Joker has filled graveyards worth of people at this point and him being insane would not exclude him from the death penalty in a lot of places in the US.
If Batman doesn't wanna kill people on purpose,fine
However, there are people who,like Joker, won't change for the better. By letting him live, as Jason said, Joker has filled multiple graveyards and no jail cell will ever hold him for long. Gotham and the rest of the world (in the DC universe) is better off without Joker
And Batman doesn't have to be the one to kill him directly
Batman trys not to kill.
Red hood just doesnt care.
Batman's "No Guns, No Killing" rule is just a result of the Comics Code Authority neutering comics back in the day, Batman wasn't meant to be a superhero. He was meant to be a Pulp Action Hero like The Phantom, the gun-toting guy in the purple suit. Personally, I want to see someone tackle that transition in a comic or movie, how Batman goes from violent gun-toting vigilante to superhero and his Rogues Gallery merely serve as reminders of his ugly past. Heck, his first fight with Joker could be the where he realizes killing might not be the answer since his attempt to kill him by throwing him into chemicals made him worse.
Except the comcis code was after he transitioned from pulp hero to superhero. It was mostly to differentiate from other pulp heroes that Bob Kane was copying as he went from a cheap knock off of The Shadow to being an actual original character which helped make him more iconic then the shadow ever was
@@MILDMONSTER1234 I think it might've been co-creator Bill Finger's doing for trying to change Batman, but I still believe the CCA was the nail in the coffin.
@@MegaJetty1Yep, bob Kane created a shadow knock off called Batman, Bill finger created the Cape Crusader we all know and love.
@@gameover9390 Okay, but still, I wish we could get a telling of how Batman goes from the Bob Kane version to the Bill Finger version. The Year One has been done to death, they need to try something new like that.
Doesn’t Batman not kill because he fears that he would enjoy it and go on a killing spree?
I believe Tim Burton portrayal of Batman is probably the balance between the two views. Batman reframed from lethal force until the Joker shows that he has the means of committing mass murder via a chemical weapon. Once he realizes that, he set out to stop Joker and his gang using lethal force, to protect Gotham.
It all boils down to ideologies. 1 will say that all life is precious (well maybe not in these EXACT words), the other will say that pure evil can only be stopped by permanent means.
Even though I still uphold Batman's moral code as a correct way to do things... I think that most versions of Jason Todd have a points when they say that Batman is wrong... Especially in the Arkham Universe, cause, if you didn't know, in the Arkhamverse, Jason went after Joker because he killed a busfull of children and stitched their bodies together(Oh, and Harley helped him, so Suicide Squad ruin Rocksteady's Reputation is still fucking stupid-), and even in different universes, like the mainline universe, Joker kidnapped Jason after Jason's mother betrayed him, before also kidnapping her and tying them up in a warehouse, he rugged the building to blow, and sadly, neither survived... And even in more tame universes, like the Dini-verse, Joker has still likely killed HUNDREDS, at least(Even though he can be kinda relatable with how broke he is)! Joker is a mass murdering psychopath, and I think this clip from Arkham VR explains why I think Jason has at least a BIT of a point... th-cam.com/video/xh1uKEtqQEQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=xI7KhBgu2G-csLbb
Jason should have just shot the Joker when Bruce turned around
Batman wants to save gotham, but gotham doesn't want to change.
My interpretation is that Batman's moral code was imposed by himself because he understands himself all too well. It's like Batman said during the climax: "It'd be too damned easy." The reason Batman places such a strict, almost self-defeating rule on himself is because he knows that he'll be even more bloodthirsty than Frank Castle if he sets even a foot down that path, like a beast let loose. Another point I'd like to bring up is from Arkham Knight. (SPOILERS!)
Throughout the whole game, the Joker has been trying to take over Batman's body. One of the biggest mental defenses Batman has against the Joker was his willingness to never kill. As long as Batman has that, the Joker can never truly possess Batman's body. That's why Joker tried so hard to push Batman into breaking that mental barrier, which he succeeded. (You crossed the blood-red line, Bruce!) Scarecrow was so close to utterly defeating Batman, too bad he has a very narrow image of what someone's worst fears looks like. Of course, Batman going out of his way to save the Joker from ending himself multiple times is pure idiocy. At that point, the future innocent lives the Joker takes are now on Batman.
A big reason he doesn’t kill is because he doesn’t fully trust himself to know when to stop if he kills. To know when enough is enough.
“Batman should kill” seems a lot like when Count Dooku was trying to convince Yoda to use the dark side. So he embraces it for a moment and Dooku saw how completely terrifying and unstoppable Yoda would be if he did.
If Batman used all of his skills but without restraint, he would quickly become a tyrant much like injustice Superman.
Hence the brilliant quote between Superman and Batman:
“You made all these contingencies but never thought to make one for yourself?”
“Of course I did, it’s the justice league”
(Something like that)
I see a lot of people in this comment section and others talking about how if someone else in Gotham killed Joker, then Batman would simply let it happen, and I think those people are missing a critical piece of the “why Batman never kills the Joker?” Puzzle: that being he has a sense of responsibility towards the Joker, even if he denies it or doesn’t realize it. He is the only one he can allow to truly deal with the Joker, and if someone else pulls the trigger and he stands by to let it happen, then to him it’s the same as if he himself did it. That’s why he can never allow the Joker to die, and why the game of cat and mouse never ends.
In the comics, Joker was an ambassador for a European country by the time he killed Jason. If Batman DID break his no-kill rule, then an international conflict occurs. When he doesn't, then the events of Under the Red Hood/A Death in the Family happen.
Also, Red Hood didn't hinder crime at all. He just became a mob boss and forced the other crime families to join him. That's all he becomes: a mob boss. He contributes to organized crime in the movie.
I'm not a comic nerd so there are lot of lore details I will miss, but I think my thoughts sums up pretty much everything I think is important to this dilemma:
Batman's code makes sense from a personal standpoint. He's aware of his limits and takes personal responsibility to maintain this line he won't cross and I can get fully behind that. It's a very interesting character motivation and makes for an interesting story that delves into his psyche, but my problem starts when the code is regarded as a sound or even somewhat morally or ethically adequate .
Batman's reasoning is primarily founded by is fear of losing control, not the actual ethical standpoint itself. It's basically that if he crosses the line, everything past that becomes scarily blurred to himself personally and it becomes a point of no return. Him killing people he wouldn't want becomes rather a moral consequence rather than the focus of his decision.
It's more "Wrong things will happen if I cross that line and lose control" and not "I won't do it because I truly believe in my philosophy that killing no matter what is wrong". If Batman were to stick to the latter, I would have tons of issues, but most notable of them would be these questions:
Does he not enable Joker? Is he not complicit in Joker's killings which are of mostly innocent people?
This philosophy completely contradicts itself and it seems very reminiscent of the Tolerance Paradox.
Batman's code seems more like an unfortunate fail-safe for his personal fear rather than a belief in itself. I think this code only works strictly as a storytelling tool embracing its innate flawed nature and not treated as a justifiable morality.
Him letting his villains live doesn't say that he stands for vengeance. Quite the opposite, actually. It says that they can murder AS MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE AS THEY WANT and he won't do anything to actually stop them.
There comes a time in a person's life when they have to grow the hell up and accept that some people don't even WANT to be saved because they get off on the chaos, bloodshed and destruction
Batman has his code for a couple reasons and it’s not as simple as killing is wrong. Batman WANTS to kill the joker he knows how much suffering it would stop. But he’s afraid he wouldn’t stop after one. The next time riddler or the penguin have innocent lives at stake why not get rid of them too?
And granted he’s still killing scum so it’s not that bad right?
Well here’s the second reason and imo the biggest reason. He’s said it before in the comics if he killed joker his biggest fear is something worse, something even more twisted and evil would take his place. He views joker as the the lesser evil compared to what could replace him
Well what would batman tell the veterans of WW2 ... ??
His moral code is a joke when it comes to real life... he did't want to end apocalypse demons ...
Batman: If you kill a killer the number of killers stays the same.
Jason: Well, what if you kill a mob family? Or you just mutilate a bunch of my bosses and show them to their lieutenants and then you give them standards?
Batman: …….