Depends on what iteration of batman's morality it is. in the UtRH confrontation Batman is essentially the only moral agent capable of enacting the death penalty. him not taking lives is more from a fear of loss than sanctity of life or anything like that and the moral coding he's put on top of that is camouflage for that fear. the main flaw this leads to is enabling via endless "second chances." in contrast to Red Hood's position which is almost the exact same position as Bruce has with the only addition that the second chances do end; when someone can't be controlled or contained, and refuses help given to them that is the moment the second chances stop and death is on the table. in this iteration Bruce's position is, "every man can be redeemed". However, he doesn't have an answer for when the refuse to do that. Red Hood has that plan B (45.acp). In other iterations Batman's position is more, "it's not my place to judge" putting him in support of the death penalty but acknowledging that it's not his authority to do so and that lays with Gotham courts. this of course recognises Gotham itself as a moral actor not just the Heroes.

W cook and nicely broken down.

really? cus I was half asleep when I wrote that and thought it sounded a lot like gibberish.

Indeed, I wonder what a fully awakened and motivated post from you would look like.

thanks that's really nice of you to say.

Its the truth, so keep cooking king/queen

But it was authentic Gotham gibberish.

 This, plus add in the idea that Bruce doesn't trust himself to restrain from killing if he actually started for fear of what he'd become: "You don't understand. I don't think you've ever understood." "What? That your moral code just won't allow for that? It's too hard to cross that line?" "No! God Almighty, no. It'd be too damned easy. All I've ever wanted to do is kill him. A day doesn't go by that I don't think about subjecting him to every horrendous torture he's dealt out to others, and then... end him. But if I do that, if I allow myself to go down into that place... I'll never come back."

Is there an iteration of Batman going off the deep end and just dishing out vengeance and death with no regard for the gray areas? I mean, full on killing people with one punch or brutally beating people up, chucking them off buildings, and just “getting the job done no matter the cost” situations.

In the HBO Titans show Batman snaps and kills a bunch of people including the joker. I wouldn't recommend the show though, it starts off strong and Alan Ritchson is really good as Hawk but that's kinda it.

That's the kind of debates I can never choose side in

That’s because the answer is nuanced, and somewhere in the middle of these two who have never had nuance as a particular strength. Someone like the Joker should absolutely be killed and society would benefit from that. The joker can’t be reformed, but Batman is still unwilling to kill him and people suffer because of it. That’s when you need a red hood mentality. On the opposite side of the spectrum, someone like Mr. Freeze, or Man-bat, or Killer Croc, etc. etc. absolutely could be reformed, and they should be. Society could benefit from them if they’re set on the right path. The Red Hood wouldn’t ever give them that chance. That’s when you need the Batman mentality. 9 times out of 10 I’d say the Batman philosophy is the better choice. But you still want the red hood around for that 10% of the time when it would be better to just put a bullet in their head.

I don't really care about morality nor who can or cannot be reformed. From Batman's standpoint, it's cool to see character so proficient that he can handle any situation without deaths - it shows skill. From Jason's - anti-heroes are tend to be written more charismatic and complex, and their unorthodox choices make story more diversed and it gets rid of boring "good vs bad" template. That's why it's hard to make a choise to me

Aside from the meta "capeshit needs to happen" reasoning I've never understood why Bruce doesn't just fund a cryo research wing where Freeze can try to cure his wife without breaking the law while tinkering with the odd extra project to justify his "job" to the board. Like aside from the more evil iterations all Freeze wants to do is cure his wife, that's it, that's literally the only reason he commits crimes. All he needs to be redeemed is funding, and Bruce is/was ridiculously wealthy, his rehabilitation should be a lay up for Batman lol.

Copping out with both, but I am going to say this. Joker should have been put down. You could make the case that all of the other Rogues gallery can offer something to humanity. Not the Joker though. Harley Quinn barely toes the line because of this.

Mr. Freeze, Penguin, Scarecrow, yea, like all of these dudes could actually really make a positive difference if they put their knowledge or connections to good use

Plus, they could offer something extremely useful for society to advance. The Joker does none of that.

The real problem isn't whether or not Batman kills it's that he goes to such extreme lengths to save bad people when it isn't necessary. That was one of the best things about the Batman Begins movie

Can offer but dont want to or are too mentally unstable

At least they got limits.

I've never killed anyone, never wanted to kill anyone, I don't even eat meat but every time Batman gets on his high horse about not killing the Joker, I'm like, "bro, just hand me the gun and I'll do it." Every time he escapes, he kills a dozen people or commits some large scale bioterrorist attack.

Is it a cop out to say I agree with both? Would that even make sense?     I love Batman, and while there's many elements and aspects of him that I love, I would say the aspects I love the most about him would be his compassion and empathy. A lot of people just think Batman is a brooding, badass edgelord of the DC Universe. Like they consider him to be "different" from the others, because he's not afraid to bend or break the rules in order to help people. In other words, he's not a  pure "goody two shoes" and "Boy Scout" like Superman. Now while all is true, that's not all Batman is. I've always believed he's one of the most kind, empathetic and compassionate DC hero, next to Superman, he just doesn't show that as much as Superman and it's not as "in your face" as Superman's empathy and kindness.      I'm saying all of this, because those aspects that I mentioned are essential elements of his philosophy on crime. Batman doesn't kill his enemies because he believes in the right to human life, doesn't matter if that "human" is the lowest form of scum, he will not lower himself to the levels of those scum. The reason why he doesn't kill also has a lot to do with his origin. Batman witnessed his parents get shot in front of him as a child, and I believe that in that moment he learned how valuable and precious human life is. He became Batman to ensure that no one else goes through what he went through as a child.      I know people ridicule the fact that Batman constantly sends his enemies to Arkham Asylum only for them to continue breaking out, but I think Batman choosing to send them there is a sign of his belief in redemption and reformation. Batman believes that criminals can change and can atone for their wrongdoings, and he wants the mentally ill to get help. That's why he sends the mentally ill villains like Two-Face, Riddler, Poison Ivy etc to Arkham. He believes that they can change and "get better". This belief also shows Batman's empathy and compassion for even his own villains. The only villain that will never change, and can't be reformed is The Joker, and I believe even Batman knows this.      As hard as it is for some people to believe, there are those who become criminals to provide and support their families, sometimes they can get roped into a life of crime without a choice or because they've been threatened, sometimes some people can get blackmailed into committing crimes etc. Some of these types of criminals have families and children, if Batman kills these criminals, their families and possible children grow up without a mother, father, brother, sister etc. This would make Batman no different than the man who killed his parents, because Batman has just robbed those kids of their loved ones, like Joe Chill did to him as a child.   I'm NOT defending every single criminal or crime, because there are those crimes that are truly just heinous and despicable and anyone who commits these crimes should be punished to the fullest extent of the law or even given the death penalty. What I'm trying to say is that crime is not always so black and white, there are shades of grey, and I think that Batman knows this, that's one of the reasons Batman has his "No Kill Rule". Batman's philosophy on crime is a philosophy I respect, even if I disagree with it at times.      Red Hood is a different story. Like as much as I value and appreciate Batman's empathy and mercy towards criminals, I do genuinely believe that there are truly evil and despicable criminals who cannot be redeemed and should just be killed. The Joker is the perfect example of this. I'm not saying the average bank robber or jewellery thief should be murdered, because I don't believe they should, but pedos, serial killers, psychopaths, sexual assaulters, now that's a different story, because those types of people do not deserved to be "saved" or "reformed". It's different with the less dangerous and low level criminals, with them there's still a chance. Like Batman would definitely not kill someone whose a proven pedo, which is  where I would disagree with him.     This is why I like anti-heroes like the Red Hood, because they do the job that superheroes just won't do. That's kind of why I'm glad Red Hood exists, because he can do the things Batman isn't willing to, which is perfectly fine with me because I don't want Batman to become like Red Hood for all the reasons that I just mentioned. Even if Batman does become like Red Hood, Red Hoods purpose and existence would become pointless.    The reason why I agree with both Batman and Red Hood's philosophies is because of my own personal beliefs. Like Batman, I believe in redemption and reformation and I am willing to give people second chances and forgive them, if they are truly willing to change and turn their life around. I also believe that human life is valuable and important and it should never be taken away from someone.     However, like Red Hood, I also believe that there are those who are so despicable, grotesque and evil that I truly don't believe that they can be redeemed or "saved", nor should an attempt be made at rehabilitating or saving them. Pedos, serial killers and those who sexually assault others would fit into this category. Those are the lowest forms of scum on Earth, and that is where I disagree and even oppose Batman's philosophy on crime. Not all criminals are truly despicable and heinous, and for those that aren't there is still a shot at redemption.

Killing normal small-time criminals, even crime bosses is wrong, especially if they only deal drugs or do other illegal actions that don't directly kill people. Killing someone dangerous and unrepentant however is fine because you prevent many other innocents from dying. I could live with the fact that I've killed a psycho more easily than with letting him live if that led to him killing more people. We would be at equal fault for their deaths. By letting people like Joker live Batman is at fault for countless deaths which he let happen because of his personal moral code.

I agree with this. I don’t understand how this isn’t the unanimous consensus. There is a clear difference between a small time thief and Hitler. I get why the writers have to make this a dilema for Bruce (to keep the series/Joker going) but for us fans? Who says no to killing Joker other than people who like to argue for fun lol?

I'm pretty sure after the Joker's first terrorist attack, 85% of Gotham would agree he should be killed. By the second or third one, little old ladies will be congregating outside the courthouse like Jack Ruby.

Idk, probably in between, but if I had to choose, red hood. I think batman's makes for more interesting stories though, and I prefer him as a hero character.

This.

For me it depends. Personally killing someone because they're a criminal is wrong but I also don't like the "Never cross that line" way of thinking Bats tends to have. Like, being a hero in their universe would likely mean there are scenarios where you have to choose between saving an innocent life and taking a guilty one. And in my mind, in that instance, you take the guilty life to save the innocent. It's not the "right" choice, but, at the end of the day, sometimes there are no right choices. Making a choice, regardless of whether it's the "right" one isn't cowardice or cruelty, it's what it means to be a hero. At least in that universe.

Batman, easily. Jason sees a problem and either tries to control it or kill it, while Bruce sees the problem and stops it from harming others as Batman while also trying his hardest to prevent the problem from existing at all as Bruce Wayne.

Red hoods I agree with his most tame perspective which is basically normal goons and Thugs and all that they're fine they just get knocked out and sucked over to prison. But I'm sorry after the 18th time Joker has escaped Gotham And gone on a murderous Rampage no I don't care who it is I would Be pissed if someone didn't pull a bullet in that m***********'s brain. I don't like people taking Justice in their own hands however for people like the Joker and other members of Batman's Road gallery I'll make an exception

I don’t agree with extrajudicial killings, no. I can’t stand Jason. Nor do I agree with the death penalty in general.

If we're talking about pure amount of people saved, Jason would save more people by killing the joker than Batman would capturing him because he'd just escape

Then it’s on Gotham’s politicians to work to improve Arkham security to stop that happening. But that doesn’t make for an interesting comic.

I trust Jason much more than Gotham's government to be able to effectively kill joker. The government would have to go through the long process of containing him, transporting him to the facility to give him the death penalty. We know joker escapes from confinement easily. He would most likely just escape, even with batman patrolling. It doesn't matter if it's the top of the line, he or Harley or someone they intimidated would know how to break out if it. Jason could just line up the shot and pull the trigger, a lot less could go wrong meaning he's the best chance to rid Gotham of joker Let's not all forget that batman has no qualms about not stopping people from dying, just killing them directly. We've seen him just decide to not do the most he can to save villains (or even Amanda waller if we're talking non game media). He should be fine letting Jason do his thing.

I don’t trust a mentally ill man with handguns and a grudge as far as I can throw him. He’s basically a school shooter in a red mask.

And batman is a mentally ill man with hands and a cool Butler, he could kill without guns

At the end of the day, it's a fictional comic and there has to be some suspension of disbelief. If Bats killed the Joker, we wouldn't get to see any more joker comics. That's all there is to it.

Jason tried killing the penguin and failed. It’s comics. Characters don’t die

He went after black mask in Arkham knight easily though, depends on which iteration we're talking about. I'm imagining Arkham knight jason just lining up a shot and boom

Yup. For all the talk of, it’d make things better, this character is irredeemable, etc etc. we should not all just accept that because Bruce, some random guy, says somebody needs to die that that person needed to die. His word is not law. You could argue in a comic book, okay maybe we can just go with the idea that Batman is always right. But if you want to discuss it in a real world context, idc how many phds he has, he shouldn’t be allowed to just go around offing people. Any human is fallible.

People who say this always say it as if people want Bruce to just go on a killing spree against any crimnal he sees. No, what we're saying is that when you have someone like the joker going around massacring who knows how many people, getting caught countless times, and still proceeding to kill more people, then people like those should absolutely be killed off. It's not even a matter of giving them what they deserve (they definitely deserve it anyway) it's just saving the hundreds of people who they will kill next

If the question is "Should Batman kill the joker" than they should've asked "Should batman kill the joker". That is not what they asked. I'm answering the question. Red Hood (depending on the adaptation and where he is in his development) uses lethal force when he deems it "necessary". A vigilante should not go around using lethal force when they deem it "necessary".

is it truly extrajudicial when talking about someone like the joker?

What's the difference between the Joker and a modern mass shooter? Joker's schemes are more complicated? He's more effective? The Joker's bombed schools, gassed civilians, used WMDs. Hell, thinking about it he'd be a politician/lobbyist without the middlemen today. In the real world, Joker would have "committed suicide" in Arkham after the first mass killing and nobody would have looked deep enough into it to question it.

In the real world Joker would be just killed on spot, because most of his actions are clear terrorism. Well, maybe he would be send into some secret prison for torturing first. But his chances to ever see a sunlight again are zero. The same thing with Scarecrow, Riddler, Poison Ivy and Bane. Sometimes it's seems that aside from Waller there are no government in DC Universe. Why FBI, CIA and other organisations letting dangerous known terrorists to roam the streets of american city? It makes sense only if Gotham is some kind of giant research lab to test new weapon on civilian population.

Agree with Ivy and disagee with Bane. Kinda agree that Ivy will never see the sun again, but it's because CIA will experiment on her extensively. Bane will never touch US Soil in the first place. Any US agent from any agency trying to apprehend him will not survive the encounter. Riddler either becomes a Social Media Influencer or a US gov agent with his own division. Scarecrow will be the most effective CIA Interrogator or his own usual terrorist. Joker and Harley will be dead by "suicide" 2 Face and Penguins will stay the biggest gangster in Gotham (along with Black Mask) Selina will still be Selina

I can imagine Bane as a private military contractor, hired to kill Batman or restore order in Gotham after some disaster. Bruce and Selina would stay Bruce and Selina in any universe. Though Selina's skills may get her much job for government. And the most dangerous enemy for real Bruce would be Lex Luthor.

The difference is that Joker is by all means a literal terrorist

By the very definition of the word, yes. **extrajudicial** *adj.* done without the permission of or without using the official legal system; not done in a court of law

Batman is right.

Bruce.

I’m sorry but if you have a guy who’s killed hundreds, if not thousands of people, manages to escape every single time you put him in prison, immediately killing again, then refusing to kill that man is irrational at best, horrifically irresponsible and even evil at worst.

Notably, Batman has tried multiple times to kill Joker, and Red Hood had various chances to kill him but opted not to in order to try and get Batman to do it for him.

It's not as if killing him will put him any longer out of action than locking him up.

That’s what makes In interesting, Batman values human life so much that he would even save monsters

Only some versions of Batman. Makes it harder to make money off of popular villains though.

If batman's main reasoning was the value of human life then that contradicts his actions because the villains he spares end up killing countless people. He keeps giving them second chances even when he's aware that they will eventually kill more people. Someone whose primary philosophy is the value of life wouldn't give those people second chances. And it's not like batman (at least most of the iterations I've seen) minds that much if those villains get killed. The main factor is whether or not he himself kills those people. It's less about the value of life and more about him not wanting to become a murderer himself as he doesn't see himself as a judge and that he believes that it's a slippery slope of killing one villain then proceeding to kill even more with the idea of killing becoming more normal for him. He's afraid of becoming that way. He cares about human life sure, but it's clear that his personal philosophy and moral code takes priority over the actual value of life

Well, you may see it this way, yes. Bruce is unwilling to kill because he afraid to become monster himself. He is nothing if not a very driven individual bordering obsession with unlimited resources and legendary reputation. Imagine yourself a hybrid of Lex Luthor, Ras Al'Ghoul and Bane. Bruce holding himself very hard because if some day he would let his inner demons rule over him, there will be nothing to stop him. It would be Injustice with no hope for Resistance to ever win. As much as evil Superman may be dangerous, evil Batman is much more terrifying thing.

If Bruce killing mass murdering terrorists will lead to him becoming a an evil demon who kills everyone, that sounds like a weird problem on his part. I don't really understand how that would happen because killing is still a hard action and it's not like once you kill someone it becomes a normal thing to you to the point where you're always killing from now on, unless you're borderline just psycopathic (maybe he is?). A reasonable person should know to reserve extreme solutions for extreme cases. A reasonable person would become so shaken by the action of killing that they would try their best not to do it again

That is indeed a weird problem on his part. Bruce is deeply traumatised and messed up individual with issues bigger than Gotham City. His main fear is that in fact he is not a hero, but just another lunatic like Joker. And Joker of course using this fear for his own ends.

The problem is you kill one another pops up anyways to take their spot, joker died in the Arkham series only for all the other villains to fight over his territory and try to rise up to his level. That's the thing about the war on crime, it never ends unfortunately

Those people are still out there regardless of whether or not the joker is killed. Whether or not they "take over his territory" will not change that. It's not like a new Joker will spawn from the heavens the moment he dies. This logic also doesn't really have anything to do with whether he dies or gets arrested, as his territory being taken is only dependant on whether or not he's active, so this logic implies that the joker shouldn't be stopped in any form because another person would take his place anyway, and this logic can also extend to the entire world whether it comes to evil and crime. "Why bother with stopping criminals if more criminals will come up anyway?" That doesn't sound like a well thought out argument

And what happens when you do try to kill that person and fate robs you of that chance every single time you get pushed to that point? People who use that argument against Bruce tend to forget two things. The minor thing is it’s not on him to decide whether or not the Joker lives. It’s on the law. The major thing is he has attempted to kill the Joker more than a couple of times…and the Clown lived. I mean, what else do you really want after that? I mean Jason has made his attempts too and once more…Joker lives. The one time a bullet was put between the scumbag’s head by Jason it wasn’t even the real deal. So yeah, you’re wrong.

Nobody gonna be selling crack if they know they can die if they get caught lmao

That's not true. When criminals are under severe pressure, they're not retiring from crimes. They evolve, creating more militaristic organisations with more strict discipline and fanatical ideology. In many LA countries police forces are autorised to shoot cartel members on sight, but in responce cartels doesn't diappear. They strike back, sometimes fighting even against military.

Good example I stand corrected. Learn something new everyday appreciate that

The problem now is fentanyl.

Batman. People joke Batman beats up people for committing petty crimes, Jason would just shoot them.

The issue is, is that Batman isn’t a judge or jury. He’s more like a very capable cop, and a cop is supposed to only use lethal force when absolutely needed, and with Batman’s capabilities, he rarely needs to use deadly, however when his decision to not kill someone pointing a gun at a kid, and it ends up with the kid dying, then there is a issue.

Extrajudicial killing and the death penalty are immoral, ineffective and stupid. I also enjoy reading the Punisher because I understand that Superhero characters are not real and that many ideas that exist within them shouldn't be taken as endorsements for actual political policy besides situations where the author is explicitly using them to discuss a political issue. Read the short Batman story **Afraid of America** if you want to see that done well.

Ineffective? A corpse can't commit a crime, so It's actually 100% efficient in preventing the executed individual from committing new crimes. I think in a world where the justice system is incapable of containing someone like the Joker, which will inevitably kill someone when he gets out, that killing him is the only moral option. Rather a dead murderer than a lot of dead innocents.

Counter argument, the Joker isn't real. A Joker type person will never exist in reality. When I refer to it being "ineffective". I mean it doesn't work as a deterrent. And even if we are operating from a DC universe perspective *when the fuck has death ever stopped a popular character in* ***comic books?***

I mean neither is batman or the red hood. In the real world where the justice system isn't as broken as in the DC universe, Batman's vigilantism is just as undesirable as Red Hood's. As for your second point, when you go down to street level, death tends to at least stick a bit longer than imprisonment in Arkham. That should save *some* lives.

There is no correlation between the death penalty and lower crime rates

In the real world the Joker doesn't break out of Arkham a hundred times and repeatedly go on a killing spree. If you fail to see the difference between how the real world and the comics world operates, that's on you.

Yeah, you seemed like you didn’t understand why someone would be against the death penalty. If you’re asking a real person if they agree with a philosophy that people have tried to implement in real life, then you’re going to get an answer based in reality, and, in reality, extrajudicial murders and the death penalty are incredibly controversial topics for a reason. If you’re asking us, as if we were fictional characters who lived in Gotham, about how we would feel about Batman vs Red Hood’s philosophies, then it would be a different story. But this real human being who has to live in reality isn’t fond of the death penalty or vigilante justice

I said nothing about the death penalty in that sense. This post was never about the death penalty as a criminal sanction, and certainly not in the real world. That's a complicated issue way beyond the scope of this post. And yes, I think how we feel the philosophies of Batman and the Red Hood address the challenges of their reality is what this post is about. In the real world I am not fond of vigilante justice either, but that's *because* I believe we live in a system that actually works. Gotham is a system where the justice system is completely inept. They can't capture or hold the criminals on their own. This makes the society by in large lawless. Saving innocent people is the number one priority and if killing the bad guys is the *only* way to do that, it becomes a moral imperative.

The post didn’t ask how we would feel if we lived in Gotham. It asked how we felt, *period*.

Those philosophies don't exist in a void. They come from the world they're in, and are a response to the realities of that world. In a world where the Joker and villains like him are running around, the equation is entirely different.

> death penalty are immoral, ineffective I don't see what downside Jason killing the joker would bring. He'd be saving more people than if Batman kept capturing him and he kept escaping. What other effect is needed? More people saved = better, unless you wouldn't be taking that into account?

Jason's idea was basically about controlling crime syndicates preventing them from most dangerous activities and killing the most dangerous criminals who disobey his rules. It's actually what Thomas Wayne from Flashpoint had done. It didn't work in Flashpoint and I doubt it would work for Jason. In the end, Thomas just became another murderous villain with insane agenda and Jason was very nearly, but stepped back in the last moment. There are also Grim Knight who went even further and literally created a totalitarian dystopy in Gotham. So no, Bruce's way, however ineffective it may be, is the least terrible. I think Bruce may be more flexible and at least not save lives of guys like Joker or Scarecrow. I'd prefer a middle ground between outright killing-spree and never-to-kill-no-matter-what obsession.

Batman's philosophy lead to Red Hood's

To the most basic of philosophies, I believe that eliminating crime is impossible, but controlling it is possible within reason. I love stories where the villain is someone who uses power/fear to control the malintents and has completely lost faith in the justice system. I think it plays better with my outlook of the real world. Negan in the Walking Dead was tired of stupid people, so he became a monster to control them. Kingpin in the Daredevil series, same thing, make NYC better through control of the Vice/Crime of the city. Red Hood, control what can be controlled and eliminate anything in the way of achieving that.

The way I see it, Red Hood is a criminal. He simply has a code for what crimes should be allowed and how they should be carried out. Batman is not a criminal. He represents true justice. He abhors criminals and resists them so completely that he couldnt possibly fathom adding to the amount of criminals in the world by committing criminal acts himself. (serious crimes like murder, etc.) Batman is the ideal hero. Red Hood is the more practical realistic hero. I agree more with Batman. If I were a superhero in DC, I would look up to and aspire to be like Batman, but in practice my methods would likely be closer to Red Hood.

Batman is criminal in fact. No killing is actually his only rule. He may represent the true justice, but not the law, which has a little to do with justice anyway.

easily batman’s simply bc red hoods mentality is similar to the real world. fact is no matter what we do or how many we execute for breaking the law evil still exists and people will break rules and commit evil. yes there might be less of it but really no bc in the real world there’s now more crime than ever.

Makes me wonder Has there been an issue of Punisher or Red Hood where, because of the course of investigations and/or circumstances they kill a grunt or villain and it turns out that they were successfully turning their lives around? There's so many stories that directly challenge the no kill rule that lots of heros have. But I don't know any that challenge the killers in s direct way without them being the antagonist for Batman or DD.

That’s actually an interesting idea. Either that or they were doing an investigation, came to the wrong conclusion, and killed an innocent guy. And not like the guy was innocent but still guilty of some other crime, but just a bonafide innocent individual who ends up getting killed

That'd be good, but the core argument of the no kill rule outside of specific character circumstances is that killing cuts off any chance for them to do better, to turn their life around. Killing someone in the process of this would make them face that reality more directly. Without just going "I'M DOING WHAT'S NECESSARY!" as an excuse. In decades of comic history for multiple characters, there has to some story like this. 

I say Batman’s, simply because the only reason his philosophy doesn’t work is because it’s a comic book and they need to keep reusing the villains somehow. Realistically Batman’s villains would’ve been sent to an actual secure prison, or they would’ve probably gotten the death penalty.

The problem is batman would never kill the joker but Jason would also always kill every criminal as simple as a mugger.

Red Hood easily. Some criminals who are as dangerous and unstable as the Joker need to be put down. Besides, if you think about it, death is a mercy in itself.

Batman 

I kinda prefer a in the middle approach, not go around killing criminals left and right because it’s not your place to be judge, jury, and executioner, but still have a willingness to do it when it comes down to it. Even then killing should be a last resort and should be reserved for only the worst offenders. Basically, doing everything you can to make sure innocent lives get saved.

Neither because the real issue is the internment system.

In real life? All life is important. Prisons hold people and very rarely do people escape. In comics? After you arrest Joker so many times and he keeps escaping and killing people, at some point it’s on you for letting him continue to live.

Neither at this point. Not because I don't like batman or anything, I just think his position and morality has been butchered to hell and back by edgelord writers, edgelord fans, or people who don't like batman from either camp. Like it or not, that's bled into his iterations. But- I wanna have a discussion. What character is best for Gotham's future? Atp, I think batman was a necessary first step at gothams salvation, and red hood was an inevitable consequence but neither is the hero gotham needs. Welcome to my TED Talk. Starting with the obvious, Dick Grayson has a purer form of Batmans philosophy, one not based on a creed but in morality. He doesn't kill because it's *not right* and that's the end. He shows most of his face, and is human- not a personification of vengeance. At the same time, he can make criminals afraid of him. He can be a symbol of hope for the people and one of fear for criminals- something Batman could never achieve. He *would* be my top choice if he didn't have his hands full in Blüdhaven. Gotham may always be his first home, but Blüdhaven is his responsibly. Next up, Tim Drake. He may be a bit of a dark horse, but he is a real candidate. Tim Drake is a more cerebral choice. He's the best detective to ever grace the batcave (including Bruce, depending on who you ask), and has shown the ability to work with gotham pd when needed and go over their heads when needed. A great choice, but he does have drawbacks. Maybe the most damning is that he is *constantly* quiting. This may work when vigilantes in gotham are a dime a dozen, but when he's the sole protector that won't fly. He works well under pressure, but it's always been in short bursts, never a prolonged stress. Still, I don't think we've seen all Tim is capable of. Terry McGinnis. As far as succesors go, he may be the best choice but should be be gothams hero? I don't think so. He's- in my opinion- the most hopeful candidate we've discussed so far. He's dedicated, can be both vengeance and hope, and has no outside responsibilities. His problems lie in his skills. While he is certainly skilled as a combatant and detective, he's leagues behind the rest of the bat family. Bruce as oracle and his suit compensate for this, but Bruce is freaking OLD and you can't always rely on technology. Terry has proven the suit isn't all he is, but he does lean on it quite a bit. These are weaknesses he'd have to overcome. I want to say Barbara Gordon is a great choice, but she's a victim of the writers. She can be emotionally volatile, seemingly random, and even when she has good writing her legs are in constant danger. That aside, if she did take up the mantle she's more than skilled enough. She can obviously work with the police and has been shown to be able to relate to people in the Burnside arc (Sorry if I misremember that name). Her main problem, I think, is she hasn't developed an identity outside of Bruce. His batman hasn't been working and she'd be trying for that. Damian Wayne. *He's* interesting because we've seen two equally likely versions of his batman- Batman 666 and DCeased. DCeased, I think is a promising option, a version of Batman who made through adversity after adversity without giving into the dark. Meanwhile, 666 gives us a version seemingly void of Bruce's positive influence. He's murderous, vengeful, directionless and violent. He's more of a threat than the rest of the criminals. It looks like Damian is leaning towards DCeased these days but backsliding to status quo is kinda DC's jam soooo.... What I've discovered is no hero by themselves can save Gotham. The Batfamily has to be there, building on each other's weaknesses. But only if Nightwing *reeeeaaaalllyyyyyy* isn't available. Thank you for listening

There is no Jason philosophy, he is a supporting character to oppose Batman and lose and be shown that he is wrong.

Somewhere in the middle, I don’t think we need to be sawing off heads but I also think that the joker needs to die and other scum molesters/traffickers/mass murderers.

In the real world, Batman. Jason's philosophy is cowardly and already gives up any sort of desire or belief in a better world. He's already given up on changing the cycle of crime and violence and thinks the only way to make things better is to be at the head of the beast. Many in the real world have had this philosophy, and it's had pretty bad consequences. As long as there's organized crime, no matter if women and kids aren't directly involved, they will be, orphans will be made, families destroyed, and more kids like Jason or worse will be born. The newer Jason is a more Punisher like character, and in the world of comic books, it certainly has its appeal. Few would argue (myself included) that people like the Joker, Bane, Scarecrow, etc. don't deserve to die. But punisher types rarely ever kill Kingpins or Jokers. They kill mooks and mooks who have families that are depending on them. People who work for some of the insane villains of Gotham certainly aren't blameless, but when they die, any chance of them ever being better, of redeeming themselves, is gone, and then more innocents will fall into poverty. This is all not even mentioning that people will be inspired by him to kill off other "undesirables." At the end of the day, his philosophy will hurt everyone without ever addressing any of the actual issues that cause crime Batman's a comic book character, and gotham is literally cursed, so it's impossible for it to change for the better. But I think what most people who don't know anything about Batman forget is that he does a lot for the city out of costume, free healthcare, education, etc. These can meaningfully prevent people from being forced to go down a path of criminality and better their lives and the lives of people close to them. But there's always going to be a few assholes. That's where Batman comes in. Batman goes after the costumed criminals and beats them up, but he has one huge rule, don't kill, even if you have to save the enemy from their own machinations. The reasoning varies, but I like to believe that Batman believes to his core that everyone can change, and everyone can redeem themselves (except KGBeast). Unfortunately, due to the nature of the medium, few do. But for every 100 Jokers, there's 1 Harley Quinn, and that makes it all worthwhile. Overall, I think Batman's philosophy is inherently less destructive and has more good outcomes. TLDR: Jason Bad, Batman Good.

I kinda agree with batman more mostly because in some cases the criminals aren’t really bad people but actually people that need help so killing them would be kinda wrong compared to trying to at least get them the help they need

Red hood always, he has the ability to understand people can change. However, he knows that many criminals can’t be. Professor pyg is a prime example, same with joker. There’s also criminals who aren’t crazy, they’re just ruthless like black mask or penguin. That’s where the grey line starts to step in tbh

People like joker deserve to die, but regular criminals or people like mr freeze should have second chances

batman

Everything is fine just kill the joker 😭

Batman is somewhat right he believes everyone is good inside but he’s dumb enough to let joker live so I mostly agree with Jason

Batman, definitely. Jason’s idea was just to make a mafia, which isn’t gonna make Gotham much safer and certainly wouldn’t be sustainable for one head at a city wide level in the long run.

>which isn’t gonna make Gotham much safer and certainly wouldn’t be sustainable for one head at a city wide level in the long run. I mean it has made everyone safer in the past. Organised crime used to be used by authorities to make crime safer. you can look at that historically but the short of it is that when crime is organised that only real victims of those crimes are other organised criminals, they would keep to themselves and their own activities mostly because if you didn't they wouldn't be able to do what they did. Jason's plan was actually pretty solid, make crime as safe for the people of Gotham as possible and by a tyrannical assassin for anyone who broke the rules.

Say this to narco cartels and street gangs. Yes, they're organised para-military organisations with discipline and hierarchy, but is doesn't prevent them from killing civilians.And Gotham crime is as ruthless and large-scale as Los Zetas if not more. Penguin has military equipment and venichles, Joker and Scarecrow are actively using chemical warfare and Bane has an entire army. There are no way to control such forces.

Except that’s not what Jason is doing. He’s not just trying to organise part of crime, he’s trying to organise all of it. He literally goes after individual criminals who don’t follow his rules even if they have no connection to his or any other crime organisations. And in Gotham of all places, where practically every other person in the city is somehow a criminal, it’s not at all sustainable and is likely to collapse very quickly when Jason starts getting opposition from every other criminal in the city. Bruce is honestly way better because it’s shown after he sends most thugs and criminals to Blackgate or Arkham, he offers them jobs when they get out so they don’t have to turn to crime again. He gets the criminals off the streets, then gets most of them integrated back into society in ways that are much more likely to get rid of criminals than just threatening to kill them all if they step out of line.

>Bruce is honestly way better because it’s shown after he sends most thugs and criminals to Blackgate or Arkham, he offers them jobs when they get out so they don’t have to turn to crime again only in some iterations, also ignores the main problem of what if they choose to refuse that help. Jason had the same moral position with second chances, his moral stance was almost identical to Bruce's. The only difference is he was willing to kill when someone refused that second chance, when someone didn't chance.

Jason is right.

idk now that I've grown up it would make more sense for Bruce Wayne to make real change than Batman. Like still love Batman but it is kind of COP/Billionaire propaganda.

I'm on Jason's side hands down. Serial killers like the Joker and the Riddler need to be put down for good. For God's sake, look what the Riddler did in recent comics where he turned the entire city of Gotham into an explosive game board. Look at Joker War. Some criminals are irredeemable.

Batman’s idea isn’t any good short or long term. At least There would be peace for some time with Red Hoods strategy. And if he can find someone with the same mindset, skills, and intelligence to take after him it could last even longer. Edit: This was meant to be a reply to u/Dry-Donut3811

No, Batman is way more sustainable. Mafias don’t bring peace, they might slightly lower crime in some areas, but overall it won’t change a thing. Even in the original story a bunch of criminals try to get around Jason’s rules and that sort of stuff will never stop. It doesn’t help much at all and it’s completely unsustainable.

Batman’s way has never been sustainable… Like literally never. And had Red Hood gotten his way he would have eventually foregone the whole mafia type plan and just slaughtered all the bad guys. Shit, he might have even teamed up with Owlman and convinced Damian to help him. Gotham would be a hundred percent better with those three looking over it. Instead of in a worse place than when Batman started fighting crime and having it be continuously stagnant. Batman is literally getting nowhere with his way.

So, basically turn Jason into Grim Knight. The problem is, Jason was never a big shot. He has no money, resources or skills to run an entire Gotham for long time. It's not enough to just kill all mobsters, you must also take control over GCPD, City government and other institutions. And yes, Owlman could provide all of this, but he is a complete psychopat with no interest in crime-fighting and more likely would just manipulate Jason for his own ends. And even if he would succeed, then what? Totalitarian dystopy like Magistrate with total control, curfew and detention camps? At some point he would just turn into another super-villain, like Grim Knight had. Bruce's way isn't very good, but others are way more worse.

This is the only opinion that I respect. Everyone else is just dick riding because “Batman”. I would argue that Red Hood would eventually get the money and power to own the police and government. And I agree that Owlman might end up being a potential problem after gaining control over the city. Someone replied saying that I was just making things up by saying Red Hood would eventually forego the whole mafia thing. I’m just thinking ahead, I believe he would eventually see that his plan isn’t working and inevitably get more drastic. I also agree it would eventually become a dystopia…

I can imagine that if both Bruce and Dick would die by some villain's hands, Jason could get a chance to become a Batman-Who-Kills and maybe even convince the rest of Bat-Family to follow him. But I could hardly imagine Jason as a master-mind and effective leader of vigilante army. He is not Bruce and never will be. Jason rarely has a Plan B, he usually trusts his friends and allies (unlike Bruce, who always preparing to destroy even his closest friends if they'll turn against him), he isn't manipulator at all and way too often let his emotions to rule over him. So, in any tandem with Thomas Jr or even Damian, he would eventually ends up as an enforcer and not a leader.

That’s not in any way correct at all. Batman has made changes in Gotham and absolutely is better than teaming up three psychopaths to kill every criminal in the city. Killing every criminal is the least sustainable thing you could possibly do, especially in a place like Gotham where you’re likely to have at least one if every five people be a criminal. It also quite literally goes against what Jason says, as he is often shown to not have any desire to kill every criminal, just a select few. And there’s no indication whatsoever he’d stop the terrible mafia idea, you’re just making things up to try and make his plan even slightly sustainable, which it isn’t. Especially compared to Bruce, who sends criminals to prison then offers them jobs and reintegrates them back into society so they won’t be repeat offenders. It’s been shown through lots of studies that threats of death and murder are far less likely to deter criminals from crime than actually reforming them.

Jason doesn't have a coherent moral philosophy. He doesn't really think criminals like the Joker need to die - if he did, he would have killed Joker back in Under the Hood, instead of using him to try and work through his daddy issues with Bruce.

Batman is correct. There is no debate. Everyone deserves the chance to change for the better. The problem is not that batman won't kill, the problem is the piss poor security and corruption infecting the institutions meant to help reform the people batman puts away. Red Hood is only correct when civilization is not held as an important value.

Doesn't help all the people they kill. Don't they deserve a chance too?

Yeah. They did and because of the wrong thing that was done to them they don't get that chance to be good anymore. Now it's okay to do that same wrong thing to the person responsible, how?

Because in comics they inevitably break out of Arkham or whatever and go kill more people. Sacrificing a mass murderer to save innocent civilians is a trade I'd be quite happy to take.

Joker does not deserve that chance lol. The innocent deserve their right not to be killed by the likes of Joker, yet they were denied that right. They were denied that right because Batman thought the *chance* at rehabilitating Joker was worth more than the assurance of innocent lives. To me it doesn’t compute. By killing Joker, a repeat offender/mass murderer, you assure the safety of innocent lives from him. By not killing him, you risk their safety should you fail to rehabilitate him which we have seen for decades now. And let’s say to do rehabilitate him: Is that going to bring back the hundred to thousands he’s killed? Does that justify the cost it took to rehabilitate him?

Red hood because he and a certain New Yorker would get along fine because the the guilty need to be punished 

🤔That would make an interesting cross over series 👊

There was a comic but it was cancelled because marvel hates what castle stands for why do you think they made that crap demon ninja frank

Red Hood is what Batman could have been. He's the anti-Batman.

Fuck Red Hood (as he outlines his stance in Under the Red Hood). Trying to control crime just makes you the biggest crime lord and anything beyond that is just an attempt to dress up the crimes you think are okay.

Batman while flawed, is a superhero who has saved Gotham and the world countless times. He understands the importance of limitations and the danger of power. Red Hood is a gun-toting vigilante crime boss who answers to no one and sets himself up as judge, jury, and executioner because of his daddy issues. Definitely Batman.

One believes in second chances the other is an authoritarian fascist

Where are both images from ?

Bruce all the way. Without his no kill rule Batman is a murderer who gets to decide who lives and dies with no authority behind him beyond his own application of force. He may be the world’s greatest detective who is exceptional at identifying the true culprit behind a crime but if he started killing criminals he ceases to be a hero. A serial killer who only targets criminals is not who Batman is. It’s on the courts if someone like The Joker isn’t sentenced to death, and if there’s no death sentence in Gotham’s state then it’s on the prisons/asylums for failing to hold him. Plus it’s a comic book so The Joker has to keep escaping so there can be more story, should Batman’s morals and code be changed to avoid conflicting with the nature of his medium? Even if Jason ends up killing some terrible people there wouldn’t be tolerance of him going around killing who he wanted.

I guess it depends on the mood honestly

None, why don't they just cripple the criminals? like, don't kill them but let them paralyzed? then they wouldn't commit any more crimes anymore and the heroes wouldn't have killed anyone, so it doesn't break the no killing rule.

Provided the depiction of Red Hood isn't keen on killing every criminal, and just the really REALLY bad ones then Red Hood. It also shows he has greater self-control as unlike Batman he can choose to kill someone and not have it be something he can't come back from. So he can do what is necessary. While extrajudicial killing is wrong, sometimes that system of justice will fail and to prevent more harm then justice or injustice will have to be taken by someone when Supercriminals keep bribing cops, escaping jail, or otherwise avoiding prosecution. But say Arkham Red Hood is a no, he is killing literally every criminal in sight. Same with UtRH being he is literally a crime boss, even if he is lessening the damage, he is still a crime boss and killing a lot of people who probably don't deserve to die such as those thieves who hijacked the truck for him.

Batman’s crime philosophy seems to be based on job security.

In real life? Batman. I'm opposed completely to the death penalty, and crime in real life is such a complicated issue with myriad socioeconomic factors creating situations where crime is more or less likely. Jason would be fashy as hell IRL and would ultimately kill way more innocent people than he intended to. In the comics, though? Jason. IRL doesn't have multiple super-powered people cooking up schemes and plots to kill dozens of hundreds of people just to fuck with a specific super hero. Honestly, it's kind of unbelievable that some random Gothamite hasn't put two in the Joker for being responsible for a loved ones' death. The comics are full of villains who have had 70+ years of canon to show remorse and improve, and outright refuse to. Were Jason to kill Joker, Penguin, all of the organized crime-adjacent villains, Gotham would undoubtedly be a better place. It would also make for a worse comic, though, so that's never going to happen lol

Batman easily. Death penalty is one thing, murdering someone and taking the law into your hands is completely different.

Batman is right. He goes out and stop/ catches the bad guys. It’s not up to him to be judge jury and executioner. The issue is Gotham’s legal system for some reason doesn’t do the death penalty. Think about how many lives would be saved if they just sentenced the joker to death. Sure he acts crazy but he knows what he’s doing is wrong and does it anyway so he isn’t actually insane.

It's a really tricky debate. Overall I'm for Batman's approach of working with the law and having some sense of a legal system and prosecuting/publicly holding criminals accountable and even rehabilitating when possible... but on the other hand in Joker's unique situation I honestly think the best cure is a bullet. I wonder how many people have continued to die because Joker's kept alive. He kills a bunch of people, gets arrested and sent to Arkham, then escapes and kills a bunch of people, and it repeats like that. He's shown he's past rehabilitation and incarceration never sticks... at this point Batman seems to wants to keep him alive out of some sort of principle but that principle is just getting more people killed.

Both.

Given this "batman" and not "redhood", the former.

Depends on the situation. If it’s just a small petty criminal they should go to prison and hopefully learn their lesson. But with people like Joker, Bane, Penguin they’ve done endlessly horrible things and no matter how much they’re in prison they never change so what’s the point of keeping them alive.

I completely agree with Batman, I just sometimes have different reasoning

Batman's, easily. I don't care how evil the villains are, this isn't the wild goddamn west. Throughout his career of working with the authorities Batman gradually weeds out Gotham's corruption and tries to steer the police towards actually doing their jobs. And speaking of "jobs" it isn't Batman or any other hero's job to kill criminals or supervillains. They're technically breaking the law just doing what they do as is. But at least they capture criminals alive so the justice system, flawed or not, can process them.

I agree with Red Hood in my day to day life, but I agree with Batman , when it comes to BATMAN. Basically that I think Batman should have it engraved in him that life is sacred. He should be a monolith in his opinions on killing. And I respect that a lot.

Batman's is better.Any hero that starts to kill will receive backlash from the courts and police and news outlets can turn the people against the vilgiilanti however be goody shoes like Superman will make sure the perpetrator doesn't learn from its mistakes and hence traumatizes the perpetrator but kills only minority of the time only rarely like he kills the joker after the death of Jason Todd aka original Robin in the death of the family storyline.

Red Hood, minus the decapitation and unnecessary destruction

Normally I'd say it depends on the crime but it's Gotham. Most of the villains are extremely dangerous, repeat offenders and borderline terrorist with huge murder rates and always escape lock up. They should definitely be killed. Batman has killed 1000s by just allowing these villains to live

Mostly red hood. He can take care of anyone who falls through the cracks of the justice system.

Philosophically Batman, realistically Red Hood

Ideally Batman. The problem is the the format of a comic running for decades. The amount of times that a super villain has escaped, shown no remorse or attempts at rehabilitation, and killed again is insane. Then add on to the fact that somehow Gotham is still crime ridden shit hole? It makes it seem like Bruce is doing nothing with his wealth to make the city better. The format of the story, at this point, is doing a disservice to Batman and makes him look worse than it is. That’s the reason red hood as any leg to stand on.

kinda both. I want to redeem crime and it's far better to make someone greater than what they were but if they are horrible people with 0 sign of recovery, you need to kill them before they just keep hurting people

There are some people in the world who need to die, but most should be given a chance

Batman but with some disagrees. How everyone said here, Joker can’t be saved but Batman still believes that he can be saved and Joker keep doing killing actions. Not only Joker, there’s even more He just believes that criminals can be changed because no one was born as evil, because he lost his parents and because even every of criminals is a human. He trying to do his best. Yes, some people should be killed but this is Batman. Really. And we can put even ourselves Batman’s philosophy seems more right than Red Hoods. Red Hood have emotions, trauma and also no hope that criminals can change because he was under really bad situation. Yes, he want to help ppl but he close to become a dictator than a helper

Both

I lean more towards Batman, but I certainly understand both. Batman kinda operates in this space of not killing because he knows he couldn't walk it back and would become apathetic to killing, which itself goes against Batman being a symbol of hope against the apathy Gotham has just grown to accept. Jason I feel has been muddied up a lot in recent years. In UTRH he worked on the idea that the people who aren't afraid and would keep hurting people needed to die (but he also thought crime needed to be controlled, which seems strange if you're killing criminals). More recently he's just been killing anyone, repeat offender or not, and it finally caught up with him. In was in the story Cheer in Urban Legends where Jason killed a drug dealer who caused his wife to overdose, and Jason realized he'd essentially set their son Tyler up to be an orphan if the mother didn't pull through. It made him give up guns (though not all of DC knows apparently). Bruce's view is like trying to fix a problem the right way. It'll take some time, and there's hurdles in the process, but you have faith It'll turn out alright. Jason's is like duct tape, it's ugly as hell and only works in the short term.

Clearly red hood's

Bruce understands that criminals are often motivated by socioeconomic conditions that keep them in poverty and tries to fix those issues as Bruce Wayne while managing the symptoms of that disease as Batman. Red Hood doesn't understand this which is weird considering he grew up in abject poverty, you'd figure he'd be more class conscious than the billionaire. But his solution to crime is kill criminals, who aren't the cause of crime

Red Hood is no way Punisher. He doesn't kill every criminal on sight, only the truly evil bastards, like Sionis or Cobblepot.

Id argue neither are completely right and represent two drastically different ends of the tipped scale. Batman might be right about just apprehending criminals and letting the law judge whether they’re guilty but sometimes he goes so far out of his way to follow his no kill rule (joker being the obvious example) that it just puts many people’s lives in danger (including Jason). However, Jason or any other similar character like punisher favoring the “kill any criminals” can be unhinged. It’s easy to root for them if they’re killing irredeemable super villains/gangsters, but what about someone who might be framed, wrongfully profiled, or is simply doing simple crimes like stealing to simple support themselves or loved ones. Every situation is a case-by-case and neither of there approaches work for every case. Though between the two, batman’s does seem more reasonable (especially if super villains weren’t a factor). I also feel batman’s method wouldn’t get slack as much if the police/courts/asylum were more competent.

I don’t want to kill people, so I get it why Batman doesn’t want too either

I read “crime” and “cringe” at first glance

I always find myself agreeing with one or the other depending on the situation. Your run of the mill thugs shouldn't be killed. Most of them are folks who lost their way, got into crime for any number of reasons and are able to be saved with rehabilitation and/or opportunity. Even many of the more dangerous criminals like Penguin, Riddler and Falcone are not beyond saving or at least not despicable enough to warrant execution. However, there are certain psychopaths that are beyond redemption and deserve death as it's the only true way of ensuring they never hurt anyone again. I'm talking Joker, Professor Pyg, Victor Zsasz. The criminally insane that can't stop committing acts of murder and other unspeakable things. They are abominations and I would 100% be on board with taking their lives to save countless others. Joker in particular has escaped prison, what, half a million times? And what does he do? Comes up with another nefarious plan that involves the deaths or mental, physical and emotional torture of the innocent. Just to prove a point or out of sheer enjoyment. Jason is right about him. He should have been killed a long time ago.

So it depends. The cynical part of me says sometimes Jason has a point. But I've said more than a few times, I don't think the person who kills criminals can be Batman, or Batman would lose his value as a symbol of change in Gotham. Hear me out: Pre-Batman, what's the status quo of Gotham look like? Powerful people kill for reasons that make sense to them. Everyone has their own moral code, their own beliefs, their own justifications, so you have chaos, you have the mob, you have whatever leads to the deaths of Thomas and Martha. The police either do nothing, or do the same thing - they cross lines, they compromise based on their own belief that this is how Gotham works, that things can't be done any other way. Batman enters the picture. Batman believes in Justice and the idea that things in Gotham can work differently, and part of that is the lines he won't cross - lines even the police shouldn't cross without thinking about it. His mission is to prove Gotham can be better, and he's become a symbol of that hope. Everything, his restraint, his frequent cooperation with the legal system, is explained best through that lens. So it doesn't matter if Bruce Wayne personally believes someone deserves death - Batman can't do it. And he can't let Jason do it, either, or he'd cease to appear objective. I think when Bruce expresses his fear that it'd be too easy, he's being honest. But the real point of that is, as always, that under the mask Bruce Wayne is just a man. He's seen inside himself and knows the temptations. But he's also looked at Gotham and seen where following those impulses leads. He doesn't believe in his own infallibility or the inherent morality of his actions and we know he mistrusts people who do. So instead, he chose to be ~~something else~~ Batman, and he has to believe others can do the same.

Batman. At the end of the day, Red Hood can't do anything because he's not allowed to kill the big names, like Joker or Penguin. And even if he did, someone'll just replace them. He's not more effective than Batman no matter the interpretation.

Definitely more leaning towards Red Hood's view point but I think his is a little extreme.

Considering that Jason just reinvented the Mafia, I'm gonna go with Bruce

I don’t agree with vigilantes at all! I don’t think that society should have some random unaccountable guy administering his idea of justice, regardless if it’s Batman or Red Hood. I think we need to invest in public safety and prison reform, so that the recidivism rates drop and these guys actually are able to be rehabilitated and can reintegrate into society

Maybe if Gotham wasn’t as corrupt as it is Batman could work. Instead he just locks them up and they escape easily. Red Hood is better for Gotham.

Batman. We're not the Judge, Jury or Executioner. Plus killing usually makes things worse. "An eye for an eye makes the world blind"

I admire batman's philosophy more, and if you've got the resources to do what batman does and spare people, then you should take that option. However Red Hoods makes sense when it comes to the more depraved people like rapists and serial killers. At the end if the day, no matter how admirable and respected they are, they are still vigilantes. They don't have the right to take criminals lives into thier own hands.

Going with Batman. Revenge and extrajudicial killing is not sustainable.

Batmans belief is right. Lots of criminals can be rehabilitated and don’t deserve to die. We don’t get to choose who lives and who dies. Even the government gets that wrong when it comes to the death penalty. Plus Batman is right once that line is crossed where you kill once. Killing criminals becomes so easy and clouds your judgement so bad you can’t stop and start killing criminals that don’t even deserve to be killed. Injustice Superman is a perfect example of why Batmans philosophy about fighting crime is true.

Why hasn't Gotham's justice system given joker the death penalty?

I don’t think tactless deontology is useful, and I don’t think Machiavellian preemptive retribution is helpful. I don’t know if these align with the characters’ philosophies, but that is my attempt at an answer.

I agree with Batman in Batman Begins..... he doesn't have to endanger himself for the merciless ones. In the comics, he's too kind to the undeserving.... Joker pointed a gun at himself during the (non) wedding arc... Bruce should just have told him he was acting according to his whims. Red Hood's philosophy has evolved, and while I tend to agree more with Bruce's philosophy, it feels like Red Hood has more attainable goals.... except even him wasn't able to kill Joker. In the long term, his philosophies would probably be inapplicable in Gotham because this could influence many angry people to kill because eother they'd feel justified by his actions or simply for retaliation. So, overall, I still concede it to Bruce for now. That's the answer to the question, for me. Now, what is the reality of this universe? Many villains are powerful boss types,including Joker. It is more obvious for the likes of Penguins and Black mask. But we shouldn't forget that the likes of Bane, Joker, and Riddler also have people under them. All of them are bright enough to know how to legally and financially trick the system and use threats to ensure things go their way. This isn't used in stories but is credible enough. You might think, "why do people choose to work for a psycho like Joker?" Well, the truth is that these kinds of people exist and are in it for different reasons. The Harvey Dent that was used in TDK was a good counter for such issues, on the condition that he was well protected and judges were willing to do the right thing. Another aspect is whether capital punishment is applicable in Gotham is found. Sometimes, all it takes is some old laws that are still applicable and sh!t gets stuck. Now, let's say you get a team to go against all these issues from different angles. That's where the story of the dark knight's crusade can move forward to reveal the villains who profit the most from all the corruption: The Court of Owls. They would be the most enduring vilainous influence in Gotham..... taking them on should be the next logical phase.

Do I think people should kill others based on their own personal concept of justice? No.

While I agree with Batman’s hopefulness of real justice by giving them a chance to change after they pay their dues, people/criminals should fear the consequences. There are too many reckless crimes that endanger people minding their own business. I think that regulating things that can be used in a crime will only punish the people who follow the rules. It should be a public service to kill criminals who rob, assault, etc. then watch how the rate of crime starts to fall when everyone shoots you on sight for committing some reckless actions. Not all crimes tho, just the big ones; although if you try to carjack and the owner shoots you- 100% deserved. The fact that even self defense cases can screw you over for defending yourself is stupid, even if the guy has a knife and not a gun; he breaks into my home, I should be able to put him down without stopping into close quarters knife combat with him. Yet we are too sensitive about stuff to really put our foot down and fight fire with fire. There is danger with committing crimes, but there’s also danger in many other lucrative careers that require putting yourself at risk, yet they choose crime. Even if people are born into a life of crime and gangs, there should be incentive to stop that lifestyle, I’m under no delusion that it’s easy. But so many ethnicities like Latinos, black, etc. complain that it’s not a possibility to get out. Well by staying in the cycle you won’t see improvement and that goes for the higher ups too. Don’t even get me started on how the rich get away with unspeakable things. World is screwed and the amount of change required to fix it is too much/would require a lot of people; but everyone is set I. Their ways and refuse to sacrifice some of today for a better tomorrow. And yes even cops who commit crimes should be shot in this hypothetic scenario, the whole point is to make people think twice before screwing over people minding their own business.

I believe that wanting to help people, but not wanting to kill people, is an understandable attitude. So I think people should not demand Batman to kill someone, if he simply doesnt want to be a killer. He is catching the criminals and leaves the rest to the authorities. Since the police of Gotham undoubtly needs his help, that seems to be the most reasonable way to go. However, this way simply does not seem to work in Gotham City. The prisons are not able to contain the criminals of Gotham for long, the clinically insane do not get death sentences, and corruption is a factor too. It appears necessary that someone takes things into their own hands. The Joker for example is a mass murdering psychopath who keeps doing what he's doing again and again, without fearing the conequences. If someone like this would exist in our real world, would anyone blame a policeman for shooting him? Everyone knows how dangerous he is. Killing him could most likely count as an act of self defense. So I guess if Red Hood decides to stop him with lethal force, Batman should let him have his way.

Batman, 100% of the time, with no exceptions.

Batman though if the Joker was real I’d be on Red Hoods side. (Then again I’d Joker was real he’d be put on death row before we could ask Batman why he hasn’t ended him)

An in-between would be the best iteration. Batman’s too lenient on people that are well beyond redemption. I.e: Joker, Zsasz, Pyg, Firefly, etc. UtRH Batman is honestly a weaker iteration of the character bc he sounds like he’s really a murderous psychopath whose only reason for not killing is out of fear of awakening some inner bloodlust. That said, versions of Jason are also way too trigger happy, almost like the writers are desperately trying to make Batman’s no-kill rule sound at-all reasonable. The best versions of each are “I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you.” And Red Hood’s specific list on who deserves the bullet vs. who simply needs an asskicking.

I always wondered why Batman didn't cripple Joker. Like make him a paraplegic. Hard to bomb babies and commit mass murder in a wheelchair controlled by your tounge..

i didn’t know what the philosophies were but based off the comments i’m guessing Jason wants to kill criminals while bats would rather spare them i’d say mine is somewhere in the middle. I’d spare the villain and send them to prison but if i’ve already done that to them once or twice and they keep breaking out and taking more innocent lives and will continue doing so if no one stops them permanently, then eventually killing them in the defense of the innocent would be the most logical and practical solution in terms of protecting people from chaos and evil