Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I know the justifactions saying that it is merely an "eye for an eye", but at the end of the day is it really just simple murder?

You can justify it anyway you can (I've always been under the impression that if you need to continually justify an action you're probably having some doubt about it.)

What do the lot of you think?

No I don't think it is.I mean the person that you are killing has killed someone else so I think they deserve it.

Unfortunately, we (society) decides what is murder and what is not.
We have decided that killing in war is not murder.
We have decided that execution in not murder.
We have decided that killing to protect your life is not murder.

As far the bigger picture is concerned; we are just animals on this planet. Death is natural. The problem with Capital Punishment is the fact that it diminishes our (the people who have to live after the person is executed) value of life. What do we want. I personally would like to have a world were we do not execute people.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Unfortunately, we (society) decides what is murder and what is not.
We have decided that killing in war is not murder.
We have decided that execution in not murder.
We have decided that killing to protect your life is not murder.


who is we?

Originally posted by inimalist
who is we?

The big we.

do you mean the government?

because at least 50% of thread participants at this point aren't part of that "we"

I don't think it's murder when it has been declared as an aforementioned consequence to a particular action equal to playing in live wires has been explained to us all. You could call capitol punishment suicide/murder. It can be murder for sure in some situations though.

Originally posted by inimalist
do you mean the government?

because at least 50% of thread participants at this point aren't part of that "we"

Bigger. Humans over time.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Bigger. Humans over time.

thats not quite true, attitudes toward capital punishment have varried hugely over time

Originally posted by inimalist
thats not quite true, attitudes toward capital punishment have varried hugely over time

Are you saying that what we have now is not connected to the past? That is just silly.

By definition murder is illegal, legalized murder is an oxymoron

Originally posted by Bardock42
By definition murder is illegal, legalized murder is an oxymoron

Thats the purpose I was trying to make.
That it's a double standard in society.

Shakya's first post made sense to me.

Originally posted by Liberator
Thats the purpose I was trying to make.
That it's a double standard in society.

No it's not, it's how language works.

Boy are not girls.
Lightbulbs are not stars.
Cows are not sheep.

Capital punishment is legalized killing, sure, but that's not a very controversial claim. Perhaps you mean to ask "is capital punishment bad?".

What Sym said is correct. You would like the impact of the word murder to apply to capital punishment because you disagree with it. I disagree with it, too, but for purposes of being linguistically clear it is not the same as murder. Rhetorically you can equate them if you like...people do it all the time with rape, though I find that distasteful (the rape thing, not the murder).

I'm pretty sure the actual definition of murder is "unlawful killing", so if it's lawful it can't be murder. It is definitely state sponsored killing though.

There is a semantic case for using murder with a definition outside of that of the legal process in the country such a killing occurs. Numerous times have killings that were literally legal in the state they were committed been generally characterised as murder, and effectively this was correct.

As a result, capital punishment would not be considered murder by the state carrying it out. This does not necessarily rule out it being defined as murder by others, and there is no technical reason to rule that view out.

Death is the punishment for many actions why not some crimes? Not all crimes but ones that prove that a person will kill again. Not executing someone that you know will kill again is murder when they kill again isn't it? I don't believe in an eye for an eye I believe that a punishment should fit a crime fairly. Fearing death keeps people from doing certain things like sticking forks in the socket. I'm sure it can deter some people from "dabbling" in certain crimes. If you were trying to put a hit out on someone I'm sure them being a cop would affect the price thus decreasing a cops risk of this danger somewhat.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
There is a semantic case for using murder with a definition outside of that of the legal process in the country such a killing occurs. Numerous times have killings that were literally legal in the state they were committed been generally characterised as murder, and effectively this was correct.

Because the observer/historian rejects the legal system that carried out the executions. But so long as one thinks there is any case where execution can be justified then there is a difference between capital punishment and murder. If not then it seems like the argument becomes wholly semantic.

Well, then assume that Liberator is referring to a situation where someone thinking capital punishment it is murder automatically rejects the part of the legal system that allows it.

You can then answer his question without disallowing it on semantic grounds.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, then assume that Liberator is referring to a situation where someone thinking capital punishment it is murder automatically rejects the part of the legal system that allows it.

You can then answer his question without disallowing it on semantic grounds.

So the question becomes "should capital punishment be legal?".

And, well, I don't know. Certainly I believe there are circumstances where killing a person is a justifiable act. On the other hand having an institution that is allowed to kill people opens doorways to serious abuse and when used cannot be overturned.

But if we take the question from the opening post rather than the title: "end of the day is it really just simple murder?"

The answer is clearly no, even without semantics. The processes used to decide if people will be executed are clear and deliberately lengthy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The answer is clearly no, even without semantics. The processes used to decide if people will be executed are clear and deliberately lengthy.

so if I deliberatly, methodicly, ritualistically, and over a long period of time, kill someone, it isn't murder?

I think your argument kindof ends at "when the state does it, it isn't illegal"

Semantically it probably isn't murder, that doesn't speak to its morality, though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
By definition murder is illegal, legalized murder is an oxymoron

Yeah, this is the post I was going to make. Luckily, I scanned the thread, first, to see that someone stole my thunder.

It's not murder if it's legal...



However, and it's already been stated by Ush, one does not have to subscribe to the state definition of murder. Consider that laws are morals made official. By that, we can, easily without having to create an oxymoron, have a person or people deciding that a capital punishment killing, is in fact, murder, by their moral standards.

That's if the "almighty righteous and objective" law is considered to just be an official moral.


I think the discussion is better served in a "is it morally wrong to kill someone while defending yourself or your family"? I like that argument much better.


But, yes, whoever said that the thread should be changed to "Is capital punishment morally wrong?" is smart.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Death is the punishment for many actions why not some crimes? Not all crimes but ones that prove that a person will kill again. Not executing someone that you know will kill again is murder when they kill again isn't it? I don't believe in an eye for an eye I believe that a punishment should fit a crime fairly. Fearing death keeps people from doing certain things like sticking forks in the socket. I'm sure it can deter some people from "dabbling" in certain crimes. If you were trying to put a hit out on someone I'm sure them being a cop would affect the price thus decreasing a cops risk of this danger somewhat.
What if you're sure that they'll kill again, but you're wrong?

Originally posted by King Kandy
What if you're sure that they'll kill again, but you're wrong?

It's called "capital punishment" not capital rehabilitation.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's called "capital punishment" not capital rehabilitation.
I'm just questioning his line of logic.

Originally posted by inimalist
so if I deliberatly, methodicly, ritualistically, and over a long period of time, kill someone, it isn't murder?

I think your argument kindof ends at "when the state does it, it isn't illegal"

Heh, Dexter is the true hand of justice.

But seriously, I did sit here for a while and try to come up with a reasonable system that would differentiate murder and execution without allowing vigilante justice and not call on "because it's sanctioned by the state". Couldn't come up with anything. Certainly if Alice follows all the rules of the courts and then executes someone we would condemn her as a violent vigilante. But when Bob does it the only difference is that he has a different employer.

I think from a standpoint of consistency that is a pretty strong blow against the death penalty.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Heh, Dexter is the true hand of justice.

But seriously, I did sit here for a while and try to come up with a reasonable system that would differentiate murder and execution without allowing vigilante justice and not call on "because it's sanctioned by the state". Couldn't come up with anything. Certainly if Alice follows all the rules of the courts and then executes someone we would condemn her as a violent vigilante. But when Bob does it the only difference is that he has a different employer.

I think from a standpoint of consistency that is a pretty strong blow against the death penalty.

What if Alice belongs to a large community that has established it's own rules (but not official law) and this large community supported an independent investigation, tried the "bad guy" by a jury of his peers, and convicted him...resulting in a community established "death penalty" to be conducted by Alice. Alice would then be killing the man in such a way that it would be murder, but would still hold the "high" standards that inimalist named. These "vigilante" legal systems do exist in "independent" communities such as militias and Fundamental Mormons. Though, execution is never really heard of. Just sayin': they could do it on their own. The only difference, really, is Bob is doing it with an official law and Alice is doing it with some sort of "social contract" law established by a community (every bit as binding, to the community, as the real law, but not "official".


That was an awful lot of quoting. It would seem that I hardly meant the words I actually typed out...which would be partially true.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What if you're sure that they'll kill again, but you're wrong? Any number of possibilities could happen in the future but we should respond to what will most likely happen. Similar to when they evacuate a city. They will only do that to save lives and if nothing happens to the city the idea that you're possibly suggesting is to not evacuate in the future because we were wrong before. The saving of lives merits making those important decisions well.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Any number of possibilities could happen in the future but we should respond to what will most likely happen. Similar to when they evacuate a city. They will only do that to save lives and if nothing happens to the city the idea that you're possibly suggesting is to not evacuate in the future because we were wrong before. The saving of lives merits making those important decisions well.
Can you prove that the death penalty ever brought the rate of crime down? That is simply not supported by the statistics.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Can you prove that the death penalty ever brought the rate of crime down? That is simply not supported by the statistics. I can't but can you prove that removing it would not cause it to rise. To be honest the death sentence will always be with us whether it's supported by law or not because I'd guess that we all know someone that if you were to break in their house they will gladly play judge jury and executioner.

To be honest I can recall being warned in advance about homes that will sentence burglars to death. I'd say it's a quality deterrent.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I can't but can you prove that removing it would not cause it to rise. To be honest the death sentence will always be with us whether it's supported by law or not because I'd guess that we all know someone that if you were to break in their house they will gladly play judge jury and executioner.

To be honest I can recall being warned in advance about homes that will sentence burglars to death. I'd say it's a quality deterrent.
That's really not true at all. Very few 1st world countries will hand out the death penalty as much as the US, if at all... and it hasn't don a thing because the US has a higher crime rate as well. I really see zip to suggest we have any kind of edge in our justice system over say, Norway.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What Sym said is correct. You would like the impact of the word murder to apply to capital punishment because you disagree with it. I disagree with it, too, but for purposes of being linguistically clear it is not the same as murder. Rhetorically you can equate them if you like...people do it all the time with rape, though I find that distasteful (the rape thing, not the murder). [/QUOTE)

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's really not true at all. Very few 1st world countries will hand out the death penalty as much as the US, if at all... and it hasn't don a thing because the US has a higher crime rate as well. I really see zip to suggest we have any kind of edge in our justice system over say, Norway.

The UK has a higher crime rate.


Also, crime rates can vary based on the laws of each country. "Crime rate" can be very misleading.

For example, eliminate most (not all, but eliminate them enough to equate to our more liberal european counter-parts) of our drug crimes in the US and we can "bridge the gap" towards some of the other european nations.

Amend our property laws (which constitutes the majority of our crimes, by a huge margin) and our crime rate can go down significantly.

We are already ahead of several european countries in crime rates, already, despite having some retarded laws.

The US ain't so bad, really, when it comes to crime rates. In fact, there are Cities in the US that are just as "crime free" as any other European city you could wish to visit.



But, really, though, you are looking for a certain category and that is probably homocide rate, correct?

In which case, I would agree, the US is significantly up the chain, there. (Homocide is usually the reason for most executions, here in the US. Some states won't even execute someone unless they have commited a homocide, I believe.)

From a philosophical standpoint, executing a murderer isn't itself murder.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Unfortunately, we (society) decides what is murder and what is not.
We have decided that killing in war is not murder.
We have decided that execution in not murder.
We have decided that killing to protect your life is not murder.

As far the bigger picture is concerned; we are just animals on this planet. Death is natural. The problem with Capital Punishment is the fact that it diminishes our (the people who have to live after the person is executed) value of life. What do we want. I personally would like to have a world were we do not execute people.

We had also decided that killing a baby in a mothers womb is also not murder which it is.

is arrest legalized kidnapping?

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
We had also decided that killing a baby in a mothers womb is also not murder which it is.

"should be"...is what you mean.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
From a philosophical standpoint, executing a murderer isn't itself murder.
What kind of philosophy is that supposed to be? You can't just make unsupported statements true by saying "from a philosophical standpoint" or "logically".

Originally posted by red g jacks
is arrest legalized kidnapping?

Good point. The Man can get away with killing and physically detaining individuals against their will, but the little guy can't.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Heh, Dexter is the true hand of justice.

god, I need to see this show apparently

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But seriously, I did sit here for a while and try to come up with a reasonable system that would differentiate murder and execution without allowing vigilante justice and not call on "because it's sanctioned by the state". Couldn't come up with anything. Certainly if Alice follows all the rules of the courts and then executes someone we would condemn her as a violent vigilante. But when Bob does it the only difference is that he has a different employer.

I think from a standpoint of consistency that is a pretty strong blow against the death penalty.

it is interesting to contrast this with the idea of the police as kidnappers.

See, most legal systems allow for people, as citizens, to restrain or incapacitate people who are breaking the law and threatening others. In an ideal system, the police essentially serve this purpose, and thus, it cannot be seen as kidnapping.

In the real world, where policing is highly racialized and there are idiotic laws (for instance, I would compare people arrented for drug laws to kidnapping) this might not hold, but conceptually, the police aren't simply kidnapping people.

but ya, thanks

Originally posted by inimalist
god, I need to see this show apparently

You described it in a nutshell.

If you only killed people who were themselves murderers and you did more than you due diligence to be sure could you live with yourself?

And the answers is, yes, but probably only if you're addicted to murder. There's a great episode in the first season where he tries to get another serial killer to follow his code and is so convincing about the need to avoid killing the innocent that the other guy goes and commits suicide rather than live with it.

It's quite good the contrast between the Utilitarian appeal of Dexter's code and the scenes of him, ya know, torturing people to death is very striking.



Originally posted by inimalist
it is interesting to contrast this with the idea of the police as kidnappers.

See, most legal systems allow for people, as citizens, to restrain or incapacitate people who are breaking the law and threatening others. In an ideal system, the police essentially serve this purpose, and thus, it cannot be seen as kidnapping.

In the real world, where policing is highly racialized and there are idiotic laws (for instance, I would compare people arrented for drug laws to kidnapping) this might not hold, but conceptually, the police aren't simply kidnapping people.

but ya, thanks

In America at least there is a well known bit of common law that allows a "citizen's arrest". In fact wikipedia makes it seem like a lot of nations recognize that detaining a person you believe to be dangerous is a reasonable right.

It is murder commited on behalf of the authorities, yes it is, but to be honest, I agree with it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What kind of philosophy is that supposed to be? You can't just make unsupported statements true by saying "from a philosophical standpoint" or "logically". Not from a philosophical school, but from a personal philosophy.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Not from a philosophical school, but from a personal philosophy.

Yeah, that much was obvious. I have no idea what he was on about.

I'm pretty sure King Kandy believes in absolute truths and morals and the like, or some shit like that.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I'm pretty sure King Kandy believes in absolute truths and morals and the like, or some shit like that. He's a Sith. Gotcha.

Originally posted by inimalist
god, I need to see this show apparently



it is interesting to contrast this with the idea of the police as kidnappers.

See, most legal systems allow for people, as citizens, to restrain or incapacitate people who are breaking the law and threatening others. In an ideal system, the police essentially serve this purpose, and thus, it cannot be seen as kidnapping.

In the real world, where policing is highly racialized and there are idiotic laws (for instance, I would compare people arrented for drug laws to kidnapping) this might not hold, but conceptually, the police aren't simply kidnapping people.

but ya, thanks yea, people have the right to detain a criminal until the cops show up. however, as citizens they have only the right to assist the police in bringing the criminal to trial, administering justice themselves goes against the prisoner's rights.

the arrest is justified in our society by the goal of attaining justice for crimes committed. some of the criminals rights are suspended momentarily in the name of justice. the same imaginary line separates murder from execution. the act is accepted (by some) in the name of justice.

so why don't we let vigilantes carry out their own form of justice? well the easiest answer to that is that people are entitled their right to due process and a fair trial, and i'm guessing the government thinks for that to be consistent there is a need for centralization.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
. I personally would like to have a world were we do not execute people. What possible use is a man who would break into your house, Rape your children, throw acid in thei faces, cut your wifes arms and legs off and then go back to his house and put the photos of it all up on the web...

id kill this man, and id seriously think about killing ANYONE who WOULDN'T kill this man if it were their own wife/daughter/child/family...on general principles.

I believe that if you willfully murder ANYONE for any purposes OTHER than self/family preservation of life, your own human rights should be forefit. I believe capital punishment should exist but with a catch. A member of the victims family must agree to it, and they must commit the act themselves , to show their dedication and resolve to ridding the world of a dangerous ****, and for retributuion. Knowing that you're killing someone is murder, im not a murderer if my brakes fail in my car and an accident is the result. But if someone breaks into my house, despite their intentions, as a fathe my imediate thought is the worst, as it should be. This man wants to kill my wife, this man wants to rape my child, and thus i would murder him with a smile in the mirror afterwards at the service ive done my family and the world.

So, hell yeah capital punishment is murder (by the person throwing the switch only!!) and hell yeah it should exist. Kill 1 to save many, , its a shame Batman doesn't think like that , how many more lives would he have saved?

Yes should be.

I don't know, to me I don't think violence solves anything.

If you'd ask me, if you put violence into the system you're going to get violence back.

The old saying, "what goes around comes around."

Originally posted by Juk3n
I believe that if you willfully murder ANYONE for any purposes OTHER than self/family preservation of life, your own human rights should be forefit. I believe capital punishment should exist but with a catch. A member of the victims family must agree to it, and they must commit the act themselves , to show their dedication and resolve to ridding the world of a dangerous ****, and for retributuion.

So, uh, you want to encourage murderers to go after the victim's whole family?

Originally posted by Juk3n
So, hell yeah capital punishment is murder (by the person throwing the switch only!!) and hell yeah it should exist. Kill 1 to save many, , its a shame Batman doesn't think like that , how many more lives would he have saved?

Executions don't save anyone. There is no consistent evidence that they reduce rates of violent crime and prison breaks almost all consist of people walking away from minimum security prisons.

Originally posted by Juk3n
its a shame Batman doesn't think like that , how many more lives would he have saved?

you aren't too familiar with the character, are you?

EDIT: that would be like saying, "gee, I wish Spider-Man used his 'great power' a little more irresponsibly"

Thing is, using your powers to kill someone who's already killed thousands, and intends to and has the means to kill more, isn't irresponsible. It's... uber responsible. Like, it's the objectively right thing to do.

^of course, in practical terms that would only justitfy wiping out organizations such as governments, official and parallele armies, huge criminal networks, political parties and movements, large corporations, etc. as common criminal individuals dont pile up that body count.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Thing is, using your powers to kill someone who's already killed thousands, and intends to and has the means to kill more, isn't irresponsible. It's... uber responsible. Like, it's the objectively right thing to do.

unless one believes that killing is wrong

in which case, objectively, it is wrong to kill that person

Originally posted by Juk3n
I believe that if you willfully murder ANYONE for any purposes OTHER than self/family preservation of life, your own human rights should be forefit.

What do you mean "human rights"? What's your definition?

The UN Declaration? The Bible? Or your own view/twist?

Originally posted by inimalist
unless one believes that killing is wrong

in which case, objectively, it is wrong to kill that person

I don't know, especially in a comicbook universe. If a supervillain is about to set off a nuclear weapon isn't it less wrong to kill him and save thousands of people then to let him kill thousands of people.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't know, especially in a comicbook universe. If a supervillain is about to set off a nuclear weapon isn't it less wrong to kill him and save thousands of people then to let him kill thousands of people.

The Japanese call that isatsu tasho: killing one so that many may live.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I'm pretty sure King Kandy believes in absolute truths and morals and the like, or some shit like that.
That's funny, because it seems to me like that's everyone else's position here, not mine. I'm not the one saying anyone "deserves" to die.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't know, especially in a comicbook universe. If a supervillain is about to set off a nuclear weapon isn't it less wrong to kill him and save thousands of people then to let him kill thousands of people. in batman's universe there is always another way. his refusal to kill never leads to an immediate body count (not counting people he could have killed, commiting murder away from his eyes when they run from arkham) and the victims the villains do kill, he wouldn't be able to save with lethal methods

Originally posted by 753
in batman's universe there is always another way. his refusal to kill never leads to an immediate body count (not counting people he could have killed, commiting murder away from his eyes when they run from arkham) and the victims the villains do kill, he wouldn't be able to save with lethal methods

Should it matter that the body count isn't immediate?

What if the bomb is on a 1hr delay? 2 hours? A day?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't know, especially in a comicbook universe. If a supervillain is about to set off a nuclear weapon isn't it less wrong to kill him and save thousands of people then to let him kill thousands of people.

that might be true, if we make some type of utilitarian moral "cost/benefit" descision, but the point was in terms of the character batman.

There are many times that he has had the opportunity to kill Joker... iirc in "Hush" Gordon yells at him for trying to save Joker's life. The point is, to Batman, killing is what makes evil people evil.

My point wasn't that the world wouldn't be a better place without the Joker, but rather, that not killing is so integral to the motivation Batman has for being batman, that if someone thinks he should just go out and kill evil people, they are missing the point entirely.

So, same with Spider-Man, sure, he could decide some night that the burden of keeping people safe isn't his alone, spend it with his wife, etc. But integral to the character's narrative universe is the fact that, it is his duty to help because he is able to. This is why terrible things always happens when he takes a night off.

Originally posted by Liberator
I don't know, to me I don't think violence solves anything. Except during World War II.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Except during World War II.

so, in your opinion, the only time it is ethical to use violence is when faced with a fascist state intent on global conquest through force and mass genocide?

Originally posted by inimalist
so, in your opinion, the only time it is ethical to use violence is when faced with a fascist state intent on global conquest through force and mass genocide? Sounds like a good enough to reason to take a stand.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Sounds like a good enough to reason to take a stand.

ok, but killing a murderer, or even a child murderer, does not fit that qualification.

so, in terms of the death penalty, if we use WW2 as a resonable example, the only people who should be executed are those who are part of an organization akin to the Nazi government of Germany.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but killing a murderer, or even a child murderer, does not fit that qualification.

so, in terms of the death penalty, if we use WW2 as a resonable example, the only people who should be executed are those who are part of an organization akin to the Nazi government of Germany. That's right. Only clearly identifiable evil organizations who have perpetuated genocide should be executed. To date there has only ever been three "just" wars, or uses of violence: The American Revolution, WWII, and the Star Wars Trilogy.


Americans fighting British people/Nazis is mankind's ultimate (and only) justification for violence.

so, in the regular, day to day, use of the death penatly, you would agree that it surves no real purpose? or that it shouldn't be used, except in the incredibly limited scope you presented (re: in practice, essentially never)

Originally posted by inimalist
so, in the regular, day to day, use of the death penatly, you would agree that it surves no real purpose? or that it shouldn't be used, except in the incredibly limited scope you presented (re: in practice, essentially never) No, I was being frivolous.

I would argue the death penalty serves as a potential three-way of either one or a combination of A.) punishment, B.) deterrent, and C.) cost-saving device. I've heard the argument that the lethal injection method, and the lengthy appeal process can cost many millions... But remove them and replace them with a final verdict and a rope--cost drops significantly.

As ruthlessly efficient as that model is though, I have a personal problem with sacrificing the few, but very real, people who are wrongfully convicted. I've amended my stance so that the death penalty should only be performed on the mass murderers/serial killers (the likes of Bundy, or the guys who committed the Oklahoma Bombing or Columbine shooting ), and those who confess to murder (for whatever their reason). To the... comparatively casual killer--life in prison, no parole. But at least they may one day be proven innocent (if they are).


But aside from laws, and costs, and risks, I have no ethical problem with executing a murderer/rapist/terrorist/traitor.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Should it matter that the body count isn't immediate?

What if the bomb is on a 1hr delay? 2 hours? A day? this does not matter. if the bomb will go off in an hour or a day, how does killing the joker help diffuse it? in his universe he can either prevent murder through non-lethal ways or there is nothing he can do to prevent it. he's never let people die by not taking an action he could take to eliminate the threat while it existed. you could claim the joker always escapes and kills again another day, but that's different, it's speculation on future events and he does not pose a threat while incarcerated.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No, I was being frivolous.

I would argue the death penalty serves as a potential three-way of either one or a combination of A.) punishment, B.) deterrent, and C.) cost-saving device. I've heard the argument that the lethal injection method, and the lengthy appeal process can cost many millions... But remove them and replace them with a final verdict and a rope--cost drops significantly.

As ruthlessly efficient as that model is though, I have a personal problem with sacrificing the few, but very real, people who are wrongfully convicted. I've amended my stance so that the death penalty should only be performed on the mass murderers/serial killers (the likes of Bundy, or the guys who committed the Oklahoma Bombing or Columbine shooting ), and those who confess to murder (for whatever their reason). To the... comparatively casual killer--life in prison, no parole. But at least they may one day be proven innocent (if they are).


But aside from laws, and costs, and risks, I have no ethical problem with executing a murderer/rapist/terrorist/traitor.

ok, but now Liberator's point is valid. When we are talking about murderers who are already caught and in prison, what purpose does killing them solve?

punishment? hardly, if we want to be vindictive, there are fates much worse than dying by a noose

deterent? there is no evidence that this works

costs? the costs of killing a person are part of the legal process that ensure that innocent people aren't killed. Reducing costs actually increases the chance that innocent people are going to die, the specific thing you said you didn't want to have happen.

in all but a very few examples (and ww2 isn't as hot of an example as you think, were the world actually not singing the graces of Hitler's economic transformation of Germany, there were plenty of opportunities to stop him short of a world war), killing and violence really do solve nothing.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but now Liberator's point is valid. When we are talking about murderers who are already caught and in prison, what purpose does killing them solve?

punishment? hardly, if we want to be vindictive, there are fates much worse than dying by a nooseName them, and apply them. Just not the expensive ones.

Originally posted by inimalist
deterent? there is no evidence that this worksNo, there isn't. But in the minds of the few... "few" can be any number you like... that DO fear death, and who will think twice when a long drop and a short stop are on the line... then good.

Originally posted by inimalist
costs? the costs of killing a person are part of the legal process that ensure that innocent people aren't killed. Reducing costs actually increases the chance that innocent people are going to die, the specific thing you said you didn't want to have happen.I'm not looking for discount killings at the Saturday matinee. I want a rope, a trap door, a lever, and a guy to pull it. Pierrepoint-style. I know that courts cost money. There's no "cheap" trial. But when a mass murderer/serial killer is proven guilty, kill him. READ: mass-murderer/serial killer. Not your run-of-the-mill stabbing or drive-by. Psycho f*cks.

To the willing confessors of "lesser" murders, such as the recent case of Russell Williams... hang 'em. He even tried to off himself.

I also forgot to add justice to the list. Don't start pontificating on just what "justice" is. To me, it's a murderer being killed. Maybe tortured some too, depending on what they did.

Originally posted by inimalist
in all but a very few examples (and ww2 isn't as hot of an example as you think, were the world actually not singing the graces of Hitler's economic transformation of Germany, there were plenty of opportunities to stop him short of a world war), killing and violence really do solve nothing. Really didn't get it, huh? The whole World War II and Star Wars thing wasn't serious.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Name them, and apply them. Just not the expensive ones.

solitary confinement

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No, there isn't. But in the minds of the few... "few" can be any number you like... that DO fear death, and who will think twice when a long drop and a short stop are on the line... then good.

that is totally not true. The only type of murder this might apply to are hitmen, as people who otherwise commit murder do it out of emotion or compulsion.

Fear of reprecussion is not something people are considering when they commit murder

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I'm not looking for discount killings at the Saturday matinee. I want a rope, a trap door, a lever, and a guy to pull it. Pierrepoint-style. I know that courts cost money. There's no "cheap" trial. But when a mass murderer/serial killer is proven guilty, kill him. READ: mass-murderer/serial killer. Not your run-of-the-mill stabbing or drive-by. Psycho f*cks.

To the willing confessors of "lesser" murders, such as the recent case of Russell Williams... hang 'em. He even tried to off himself.

all you have done is restate what I said was errorous. You are right, eliminating the lengthy and costly court process would reduce costs, but there is no way to do this without also increasing the number of innocent people who are killed

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I also forgot to add justice to the list. Don't start pontificating on just what "justice" is. To me, it's a murderer being killed. Maybe tortured some too, depending on what they did.

wow, clearly you have a strong impression of who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.

EDIT: and this addresses the OP's point anyways, as these things can only be seen as "ok" if we accept the principle that "when the state does it, its not illegal"

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Really didn't get it, huh? The whole World War II and Star Wars thing wasn't serious.

so you don't think violence was justified to stop the Nazis? You agree that violence solves nothing?

like, way to be all snarky and a prickly pear, but you have to make your sarcasm internally consistent with the point you are making, but you are right, brining up ww2 was a bad example on your part, as it has nothing to do with the death penalty except in tangentals

Originally posted by 753
this does not matter. if the bomb will go off in an hour or a day, how does killing the joker help diffuse it?

The Joker is about to press the button that will in 5 hours blow up a random city. Batman, or you, can only stop him from pressing it by lethal force for .

Can you really say that it is moral to let the Joker kill hundreds of thousands of people just because they're more removed in time and space than he is?

Originally posted by 753
in his universe he can either prevent murder through non-lethal ways or there is nothing he can do to prevent it. he's never let people die by not taking an action he could take to eliminate the threat while it existed. you could claim the joker always escapes and kills again another day, but that's different, it's speculation on future events and he does not pose a threat while incarcerated.

It's not really any more speculation than "If drop an apple it will fall to the ground." Yes, it might shoot off to the left but after hundreds of experiments the apple always falls to the ground and the Joker always kills again.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The Joker is about to press the button that will in 5 hours blow up a random city. Batman, or you, can only stop him from pressing it by lethal force for .

Can you really say that it is moral to let the Joker kill hundreds of thousands of people just because they're more removed in time and space than he is?

I'm not debating the morality of that action, I'm saying that in Batman's fictional universe, it never comes to that. If he had no other way of stopping the slaughter of the innocent, then he would probably kill, but he won't be forced into that position because it would destroy the mythos and expose the impossible and ultimately escapist nature of his world and the absolute morality system he adheres to (I'm talking about him killing people, not alien gods that personify evil and crap like that)

we know that because we know how comics work, but the characters have an in-universe perspective. the joker killing again isnt a certainty for them. they believe he's been contained when they lock him up.

Originally posted by inimalist
solitary confinementWill the taxpayers have to pay for the food we give them?



Originally posted by inimalist
that is totally not true. The only type of murder this might apply to are hitmen, as people who otherwise commit murder do it out of emotion or compulsion.

Fear of reprecussion is not something people are considering when they commit murderYou're right there. Kinda. I've greatly desired to murder someone who didn't deserve it, but... fear of 6 years in jail stayed my hand. When I know that death is on the line, I'm even more wary. And that's just me. Not the crazy f*ck down the road who doesn't care about 6 years but who does fear oblivion. Even if there's only a dozen guys like that in a country, that's a dozen innocent people not being murdered because there would-be killer is afraid to die. If killing mass murderers and self-confessed killers uninspires even one person... I'm satisfied.



Originally posted by inimalist
all you have done is restate what I said was errorous. You are right, eliminating the lengthy and costly court process would reduce costs, but there is no way to do this without also increasing the number of innocent people who are killedThere's a difference between the expensive trial and the expensive appeal. And as I've stated: in my books, a CONVICTED MURDERER, will not die. A convicted MASS MURDERER (Columbine-esque) or SERIAL KILLER (Bundy-esque, etc.) or CONFESSOR--will die. So there's plenty-a time left for the "normie" killers to appeal their sentence, and why? Because their sentence isn't death. I'm getting sick of repeating this.



Originally posted by inimalist
wow, clearly you have a strong impression of who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.Don't start tossing out "good and bad" morality scales. I have a clear impression of who a murderer is, and who isn't. And I leave that labeling up to police/judges/juries.

Originally posted by inimalist
EDIT: and this addresses the OP's point anyways, as these things can only be seen as "ok" if we accept the principle that "when the state does it, its not illegal"I don't know if you've been living in Anarchyville recently, but... when the state does it, it IS legal. Is it useful and/or just is what I care (more) about.



Originally posted by inimalist
so you don't think violence was justified to stop the Nazis? You agree that violence solves nothing?I agree that violence solves many things. Not everything. But many things. I also agree that there are alternatives to violence even if violence would work. Not all the time. But sometimes.

When the Nazis invade Canada, I'll be the first to cry out to it's defenders: "Violence solves nothing!"

Originally posted by inimalist
like, way to be all snarky and a prickly pear, but you have to make your sarcasm internally consistent with the point you are making, but you are right, brining up ww2 was a bad example on your part, as it has nothing to do with the death penalty except in tangentals It's sweet of you to decide when I can or when I can not joke, or when I am or am not being snarky. It's appreciated. It's also good of you to take in to consideration that I was referring to violence against the Nazis/Darth Vader, not capital punishment.

Originally posted by inimalist
that might be true, if we make some type of utilitarian moral "cost/benefit" descision, but the point was in terms of the character batman.

There are many times that he has had the opportunity to kill Joker... iirc in "Hush" Gordon yells at him for trying to save Joker's life. The point is, to Batman, killing is what makes evil people evil.

My point wasn't that the world wouldn't be a better place without the Joker, but rather, that not killing is so integral to the motivation Batman has for being batman, that if someone thinks he should just go out and kill evil people, they are missing the point entirely.

So, same with Spider-Man, sure, he could decide some night that the burden of keeping people safe isn't his alone, spend it with his wife, etc. But integral to the character's narrative universe is the fact that, it is his duty to help because he is able to. This is why terrible things always happens when he takes a night off. Could you explain to me what the point is? Is it that Batman doesn't kill because it's not apart of his character? If so, that's a very horrible justification.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Will the taxpayers have to pay for the food we give them?

price of incarceration was your issue, not mine

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You're right there. Kinda. I've greatly desired to murder someone who didn't deserve it, but... fear of 6 years in jail stayed my hand. When I know that death is on the line, I'm even more wary. And that's just me. Not the crazy f*ck down the road who doesn't care about 6 years but who does fear oblivion. Even if there's only a dozen guys like that in a country, that's a dozen innocent people not being murdered because there would-be killer is afraid to die. If killing mass murderers and self-confessed killers uninspires even one person... I'm satisfied.

lol, so you would willingly admit that, in the abscense of punishment, you would kill someone?

hard-to-the-core bra!

all existant literature on human behaviour disagrees with you, and if you REALLY believe what you said, you need psychiatric help.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
There's a difference between the expensive trial and the expensive appeal. And as I've stated: in my books, a CONVICTED MURDERER, will not die. A convicted MASS MURDERER (Columbine-esque) or SERIAL KILLER (Bundy-esque, etc.) or CONFESSOR--will die. So there's plenty-a time left for the "normie" killers to appeal their sentence, and why? Because their sentence isn't death. I'm getting sick of repeating this.

I can't imagine these cases make up a significant percentage of death row inmates, so there would be almost no drop in costs. Even then, convicted mass murderers deserve the same chance of appeal as anyone else, and confessions are often forced, not to mention many psychological issues that can cause people to confess to crimes they didn't commit.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Don't start tossing out "good and bad" morality scales. I have a clear impression of who a murderer is, and who isn't. And I leave that labeling up to police/judges/juries.

yes, you do, it is "who the state says is a murderer".

though, you really don't have a good argument for why it isn't murder when the state does it, aside from "the state can do what it wants"

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I don't know if you've been living in Anarchyville recently, but... when the state does it, it IS legal. Is it useful and/or just is what I care (more) about.

well, since all available statistics are against it being useful, I'll do you a solid and argue in terms of just /sigh

"when the state does it, it is just" is your argument then? "Watergate does not bother me, does your conscious bother you?"

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I agree that violence solves many things. Not everything. But many things. I also agree that there are alternatives to violence even if violence would work. Not all the time. But sometimes.

what does it solve?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
When the Nazis invade Canada, I'll be the first to cry out to it's defenders: "Violence solves nothing!"

God, I feel for the morons who ever try to invade Canada

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
It's sweet of you to decide when I can or when I can not joke, or when I am or am not being snarky. It's appreciated. It's also good of you to take in to consideration that I was referring to violence against the Nazis/Darth Vader, not capital punishment.

you don't see capital punishment as a form of violence?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Could you explain to me what the point is? Is it that Batman doesn't kill because it's not apart of his character? If so, that's a very horrible justification.

I'm not trying to justify his actions or apply the context of Gotham City to the real world, what I am saying, is that as a narrative, Batman's universe doesn't work if he kills. Desiring Batman to kill the Joker, or thinking it would be a better "batman", ignores this.

What I'm saying is that the poster's comment ignores Batman's character and mythos in the same way ignoring "with great power comes great responsibility" would ruin spiderman.

The Batman narrative sets a clear line of justification in Batman's actions. He is good, even when he is torturing information out of street thugs, because he doesn't kill, because he has some moral compass. We can disagree with that compass, we can speak in terms of utilitarianism, but at the end of the day, "not killing" is how batman works. He HAS to believe in redemption based on his own character, he HAS to believe not killing is more effective than killing, or else his own behaviour and perspective on the world make no sense.

Similarily, Spider-man could be much more ego-centric, but in the end, if that didn't end up, say, killing uncle ben or letting Carnage go ape-shit on Venom and Black Cat, it wouldn't be an appropriate treatment of the character's mythos. God, the entire Gwen Stacey thing is this.... but I'm not going to let myself rant about comics....

No one's arguing the In-Universe shenanigans. It's purely from a realistic perspective that his beliefs are retarded and hypocritical.

fair enough, this whole conversation was started by this comment:

Originally posted by Juk3n
So, hell yeah capital punishment is murder (by the person throwing the switch only!!) and hell yeah it should exist. Kill 1 to save many, , its a shame Batman doesn't think like that , how many more lives would he have saved?

which, to me, sounds like this member would rather read comics about Jason Todd wearing batman's skin.

Originally posted by inimalist
price of incarceration was your issue, not mineAnd it's very dear to me.



Originally posted by inimalist
lol, so you would willingly admit that, in the abscense of punishment, you would kill someone?

hard-to-the-core bra! Totally dude.

Originally posted by inimalist
all existant literature on human behaviour disagrees with you, and if you REALLY believe what you said, you need psychiatric help. I've never ruled it out, but there's that little cost issue. And the state won't fund it if there's no discernible problem. F*ckin' fascists...



Originally posted by inimalist
I can't imagine these cases make up a significant percentage of death row inmates, so there would be almost no drop in costs. Even then, convicted mass murderers deserve the same chance of appeal as anyone else, and confessions are often forced, not to mention many psychological issues that can cause people to confess to crimes they didn't commit.You're confusing my dislike of current costs with a politician's promise to slash the deficit. I'm not interested in "dropping costs", well... not as a primary reason, anyway. I also never made mention of stripping confessors to their right to trial. Just to up the ante should they be convicted. Mental illness would be taken in to the equation of the validity of their surrender.



Originally posted by inimalist
yes, you do, it is "who the state says is a murderer".You can't wholly trust the government, that's a fact. But I'd rather put my faith in this flawed democracy with it's fallible justice system than to leave it to anarchism.

Originally posted by inimalist
though, you really don't have a good argument for why it isn't murder when the state does it, aside from "the state can do what it wants"The state "will do it what it wants, when it can". Don't confuse the two phrases. And as I said a page or so ago, "From a certain philosophical standpoint, executing a murderer is not itself murder." That's a personal philosophy, not a school of thought, as Kandy confused it to be. And it's mine. People become murderers by knowingly killing an "innocent" (definition subjective). When they do so, they forsake their own... "moral innocence" (definition subjective). In my mind, ONLY murderers can do this. Possibly rapists, depending on the situation. And to subsequently kill this person, is not itself murder.



Originally posted by inimalist
well, since all available statistics are against it being useful, I'll do you a solid and argue in terms of just /sighI'll return the favour /sigh I know the stats. of execution-to-prevention ratio are low. I've long conceded that. And I find it unfortunate. /double rainbow sigh.

Originally posted by inimalist
"when the state does it, it is just" is your argument then? "Watergate does not bother me, does your conscious bother you?"Please stop confusing terms. "Justice" is not the same as "law". When the state sanctions something, like proscription, it's law. When the victims suffer it, it isn't just. Justice is a highly personal matter. And justice for murderers, to ME, is death in kind.



Originally posted by inimalist
what does it solve?Nazi aggression. Why? Do you think a strongly written letter or appeasements would work?


Originally posted by inimalist
God, I feel for the morons who ever try to invade CanadaSame. Their guns won't stand a chance against our iron pacifism.



Originally posted by inimalist
you don't see capital punishment as a form of violence? It most certainly is. Why? Don't you?

Originally posted by inimalist
you aren't too familiar with the character, are you?

EDIT: that would be like saying, "gee, I wish Spider-Man used his 'great power' a little more irresponsibly"

lol.

No, it is you that is unfamiliar with something...check it out...

There was a big ass argument, in the comic book section, about the stupidity of Batman NOT killing The Joker and how many thousands of lives Batman could have saved had he killed him from somewhere close to the beginning.


Also, in order to keep the analogy the same, you would have had to say something like:

"That would be like saying, "gee, I wish Spider-Man used his 'great power' to kill carnage the instant they discovered he was a mass-murderer, saving hundreds of lives in the process."

The reasons behind my selecting Carnage have 2 parallels. Carnage was designed after The Joker and Carnage is a mass-murderer. I cannot think of a better choice. lol



Originally posted by inimalist
that might be true, if we make some type of utilitarian moral "cost/benefit" descision, but the point was in terms of the character batman.

There are many times that he has had the opportunity to kill Joker... iirc in "Hush" Gordon yells at him for trying to save Joker's life. The point is, to Batman, killing is what makes evil people evil.

My point wasn't that the world wouldn't be a better place without the Joker, but rather, that not killing is so integral to the motivation Batman has for being batman, that if someone thinks he should just go out and kill evil people, they are missing the point entirely.

So, same with Spider-Man, sure, he could decide some night that the burden of keeping people safe isn't his alone, spend it with his wife, etc. But integral to the character's narrative universe is the fact that, it is his duty to help because he is able to. This is why terrible things always happens when he takes a night off.


Here, here's an alternative explanation?

Batman is indirectly responsible for the murder of thousands of people. You're applying the often-times retarded "in-universe" rules to Batman's character/motivations. It's not that people don't understand how integral that is to Batman's character, it's just that his "rule" has lead to some rather retarded outcomes: for example, the thousands Joker has killed.


"Let's save The Joker so that he can kill more people." That is the exact outcome and there is no way around that outcome. This is why it's very very stupid for Batman not to kill. The reason of, "I won't be able to stop once I start" is a pretty good reason...only for one person. But it's not a good enough reason, at all, when Batman knows that some of the characters he stops WILL murder innocents, again. But then there's "vigilante justice" going on. But, wait? Isn't that Batman's whole character? Vigilante-ism? So it's a rather moot point that it would be "Vigilante Justice." Obviously, Batman is already a vigilante. Obviously, Batman has witnessed or been privy to thousands of murders and murder cases. Why does he still refuse to kill when it would obviously save thousands to millions of lives? Simple: we gotta have a story, man! How are we supposed to sell comics if Batman takes care of everything?


The Punisher is a better version of Batman. 313

Originally posted by 753
this does not matter. if the bomb will go off in an hour or a day, how does killing the joker help diffuse it? in his universe he can either prevent murder through non-lethal ways or there is nothing he can do to prevent it. he's never let people die by not taking an action he could take to eliminate the threat while it existed. you could claim the joker always escapes and kills again another day, but that's different, it's speculation on future events and he does not pose a threat while incarcerated.

Speculation that a character, in a fictional universe, will do everything in his power to kill people in what The Joker considers "entertaining" and "humorous" ways, is somehow speculation? No, the speculation is what the body count will be the next time, not whether or not he will murder again.




Edit - inimalist, I did not see your rants at the bottom of page 4. You can pretty much ignore my entire post.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - inimalist, I did not see your rants at the bottom of page 4. You can pretty much ignore my entire post.

done

In case of the Joker you can blame any police officer or any employee of Arkham just as much as Batman. It's perfectly fine for Batman to choose not to kill. Sure he picks and chooses the laws to follow, but I don't see why that is in itself worse than following no laws or all laws.

Stop hating on The Batman, you douche.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Speculation that a character, in a fictional universe, will do everything in his power to kill people in what The Joker considers "entertaining" and "humorous" ways, is somehow speculation? No, the speculation is what the body count will be the next time, not whether or not he will murder again.
Yes, it is speculation. Batman does not know that the joker will kill again like you claim. You know that because you read comics and know how they work. Once a villain has been contained through non-lethal methods, as it's always possible to do in his universe, executing him serves no life saving purpose and amounts to vengeance. The fact that the joker intends to keep killing means nothing either, wanting isn't doing it. Batman is inside his unvierse and has been acting as a vigilante for a few years, he's not reading a predictable comic book in which events have repeated themselves every month for 60 years and iconic villains remain unstoppable so the comic goes on forever.

Originally posted by Bardock42
In case of the Joker you can blame any police officer or any employee of Arkham just as much as Batman. It's perfectly fine for Batman to choose not to kill. Sure he picks and chooses the laws to follow, but I don't see why that is in itself worse than following no laws or all laws.

No, we can't.


They have a job and that job is specific. Batman is doing it for lulz and he is not paid to do it (I'm sure there are several exceptions, but get the point instead of thinking of exceptions) Batman is vigilante with the skills (superior to the police) and tools (superior to the police) to "fix" the Joker problem.

On top of that, there are probably situations that The Joker really could be shot down by the police, it's just that the story is written in such a way that that doesn't happen very often.


Come to think of it...I do remember a couple of time that The Joker was shot at by the police...lemme see what I can find.

And, no, it's not perfectly fine for Batman not to kill. It's pretty wrong of him not to. His self-righteous pretentiousness does not bring the thousands back that he could have saved had he checked his ego at the door when he decided to....ahem...


1. Assault.
2. Assault with a deadly weapon.
3. Kidnapping.
4. Impersonating the Law.
5. Trespassing.
6. Torture.
7. Extortion.
8. Burglary.
9. Vandalism.
10. Aggravated Battery.
11. Battery.
12. Illegal Arms possession.
13. Breaking almost every traffic law ever.
14. Breaking almost every air traffic law, ever. lol!
15. Espionage of all kinds (corporate, internal, foreign, etc.)
16. Racketeering.
17. Blackmail.
18. Larceny.
19. Obstruction.
20. The biggest one, Negligent Homicide.



And that's just from the top of my head and I wanted to stop at 20.


I'm sure we could lay on Batman many more crimes and Batman has committed lots more than that. It would seem that he cares more about one particular law than he does any others. Doesn't that really seem...kind of...stupid? By breaking one law, he could save a whole lot of lives, at times.


THE PUNISHER, man. I like that guy.


Originally posted by inimalist
done

I know you read it anyway, though. 313

He doesn't care about the law at all, he cares about his own sese of justice and according to it, killing is unnacceptable.

Originally posted by 753
He doesn't care about the law at all, he cares about his own sese of justice and according to it, killing is unnacceptable.

I can just picture him now, screaming "JUSTICE" when The Joker is busted out of prison, for the twelve millionth time. Then he screams "SWWWWEEEET VICTORY OF JUSTICE! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" when he stumbles upon the mutilated bodies of Joker's the obvious "Justice Served" at the hands of Batman.

That, or Batman whispers into the victim's ear (which is no longer attached to the head of the body), "eat my justice, bitches. Tastes good, doesn't it?"

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, we can't.


They have a job and that job is specific. Batman is doing it for lulz and he is not paid to do it (I'm sure there are several exceptions, but get the point instead of thinking of exceptions) Batman is vigilante with the skills (superior to the police) and tools (superior to the police) to "fix" the Joker problem.

On top of that, there are probably situations that The Joker really could be shot down by the police, it's just that the story is written in such a way that that doesn't happen very often.


Come to think of it...I do remember a couple of time that The Joker was shot at by the police...lemme see what I can find.

And, no, it's not perfectly fine for Batman not to kill. It's pretty wrong of him not to. His self-righteous pretentiousness does not bring the thousands back that he could have saved had he checked his ego at the door when he decided to....ahem...


1. Assault.
2. Assault with a deadly weapon.
3. Kidnapping.
4. Impersonating the Law.
5. Trespassing.
6. Torture.
7. Extortion.
8. Burglary.
9. Vandalism.
10. Aggravated Battery.
11. Battery.
12. Illegal Arms possession.
13. Breaking almost every traffic law ever.
14. Breaking almost every air traffic law, ever. lol!
15. Espionage of all kinds (corporate, internal, foreign, etc.)
16. Racketeering.
17. Blackmail.
18. Larceny.
19. Obstruction.
20. The biggest one, Negligent Homicide.



And that's just from the top of my head and I wanted to stop at 20.


I'm sure we could lay on Batman many more crimes and Batman has committed lots more than that. It would seem that he cares more about one particular law than he does any others. Doesn't that really seem...kind of...stupid? By breaking one law, he could save a whole lot of lives, at times.


THE PUNISHER, man. I like that guy.




I know you read it anyway, though. 313 Batman doing it without being paid for it by the government or a private institution somehow means he should be the one to kill Joker to save more people.




....what?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Batman doing it without being paid for it by the government or a private institution somehow means he should be the one to kill Joker to save more people.




....what?



Of all the things you could have possibly taken from my post, you decide to miss all the points and make some weird shit up?

Bardock, that IS you!


Edit - What flies directly into the face of your trying (but failing miserably) to discount any point I made is the references to police actually shooting at Joker. There's also the fact that a police officer has to follow a set of laws, even more so than a regular citizen and Batman, whlie not having to follow an even higher standard of moral conduct (because he is not sworn into to protect and serve Gotham City and isn't on the people's dime to do so), Batman pretty much takes a piss on any sort of laws that are around if it servees his purposes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Of all the things you could have possibly taken from my post, you decide to miss all the points and make some weird shit up?

Bardock, that IS you!


Edit - What flies directly into the face of your trying (but failing miserably) to discount any point I made is the references to police actually shooting at Joker. There's also the fact that a police officer has to follow a set of laws, even more so than a regular citizen and Batman, whlie not having to follow an even higher standard of moral conduct (because he is not sworn into to protect and serve Gotham City and isn't on the people's dime to do so), Batman pretty much takes a piss on any sort of laws that are around if it servees his purposes.

No, that's actually what you said. Batman goes much further than most any other person to protect and help people, blaming him more than anyone else to not kill certain people is insane. He has at most as much blame as anyone else that has the chance to kill Joker, which is almost anyone in the GCPD, Arkham Asylum and, I'm sure, a couple of other people, too.

I agree with the Punisher being awesome though.

I'm not up to date on The Punisher's coming and goings, but hasn't he had a few innocent deaths at his hands due to his uber-violence against criminals?

Not sure that's better for the populace than Batman's strict no-killing code.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I know you read it anyway, though. 313

my answer was going to be a quote of the post you eventually saw

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - What flies directly into the face of your trying (but failing miserably) to discount any point I made is the references to police actually shooting at Joker. There's also the fact that a police officer has to follow a set of laws, even more so than a regular citizen and Batman, whlie not having to follow an even higher standard of moral conduct (because he is not sworn into to protect and serve Gotham City and isn't on the people's dime to do so), Batman pretty much takes a piss on any sort of laws that are around if it servees his purposes.

in one of the Hush issues, Joker lies dying from a bullet, and Batman essentially has to kidnap him from Gordan and the GCPD to get him medical attention.

That being said, have you read Batman: Secrets? make whatever points about costs and benefits, but you could never get that type of writing if Batman didn't have his codes.

essentially, batman doesn't kill joker to prove a point to joker himself. The joker knows he has won if he corrupts batman to the point of rejecting his own moral code. Say what you want, that is a powerful message when written correctly.

Writers go out of their way to paint Joker and Batman as two sides of the same coin, differentiated only by their morality. It is stated very plainly at times that were Batman to kill, there would be no way to draw a line between himself and the Joker.

Originally posted by dadudemon
THE PUNISHER, man. I like that guy.

he has his moments. I'd say well more than half the stuff I've read has been by terrible writers... Frankencastle?

The mythos is interesting, but it tends to be somewhat two dimensional compared to stuff like "arkham asylum" or other weird psychological stuff that comes out of Batman (though, I'm not trying to choose "sides" here, both great characters when handled correctly, I've just had a much more selective reading of Batman, ie, not a lot of the crap)

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm not up to date on The Punisher's coming and goings, but hasn't he had a few innocent deaths at his hands due to his uber-violence against criminals?

Not sure that's better for the populace than Batman's strict no-killing code.

he has a very low threshold for what makes someone no longer innocent.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's really not true at all. Very few 1st world countries will hand out the death penalty as much as the US, if at all... and it hasn't don a thing because the US has a higher crime rate as well. I really see zip to suggest we have any kind of edge in our justice system over say, Norway. In the US anyone can get a gun. How many other countries do the citizens get to go buy these at the store?

Originally posted by The MISTER
In the US anyone can get a gun. How many other countries do the citizens get to go buy these at the store?

lots. shotguns and rifles are common for hunting around the world

most nations don't allow you buy military grade assault rifles, but then again, neither do all the States

Originally posted by inimalist


he has a very low threshold for what makes someone no longer innocent.

Hahaha, k.

I was talking more about collateral damage than him purposely shooting a jaywalker.

Originally posted by inimalist
lots. shotguns and rifles are common for hunting around the world

most nations don't allow you buy military grade assault rifles, but then again, neither do all the States So are crossbows but what superpowers have carrying guns as part of their culture? Americans have stiffer penalties for killing people because killing is quite a large part of our culture and we have been so desensitized.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm not up to date on The Punisher's coming and goings, but hasn't he had a few innocent deaths at his hands due to his uber-violence against criminals?

Not sure that's better for the populace than Batman's strict no-killing code.

Good point, Punisher's work never seems to have any significant effect on crime while Batman has saved the whole planet several times.

Originally posted by inimalist
lots. shotguns and rifles are common for hunting around the world

most nations don't allow you buy military grade assault rifles, but then again, neither do all the States

Pfft, assault rifles nothing. You can buy anti-vehicle rifles in some parts of the country.

Originally posted by The MISTER
So are crossbows but what superpowers have carrying guns as part of their culture? Americans have stiffer penalties for killing people because killing is quite a large part of our culture and we have been so desensitized.

it is mandatory for adult males in switzerland to own loaded pistols or assault rifles

they have so little gun crime that statistics aren't really kept

Yes they are, and Switzerland's gun homicide rate is higher than a lot of countries in Western Europe, which contrasts with their low general homicide rate. The reason for the discrepancy is the availability of guns. Switzerland is increasingly worried about gun crime lately. In fact they only just had a huge debate on the issue this year, though they have decided against more restrictions for now- but it's still being put for referendum soon. There's a definite concern.

Originally posted by Bardock42
In case of the Joker you can blame any police officer or any employee of Arkham just as much as Batman. It's perfectly fine for Batman to choose not to kill. Sure he picks and chooses the laws to follow, but I don't see why that is in itself worse than following no laws or all laws. Well, that's the thing though isn't it? Everyone in Batman's universe is pretty idiotic. That's kind of why he gets beef for not being smarter. Aside from the obvious plot induced stupidity, you'd think that he would be less trusting of his oh so ridiculously flawed government.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Well, that's the thing though isn't it? Everyone in Batman's universe is pretty idiotic. That's kind of why he gets beef for not being smarter. Aside from the obvious plot induced stupidity, you'd think that he would be less trusting of his oh so ridiculously flawed government.

I don't think he's very trusting of it. However he has set for himself the limit not to actively take someone's lives.


Though perhaps we shouldn't discuss it in this thread necessarily.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm not up to date on The Punisher's coming and goings, but hasn't he had a few innocent deaths at his hands due to his uber-violence against criminals?

Not sure that's better for the populace than Batman's strict no-killing code. As I understand it, neither 616 nor max punisher have ever killed civilians. He's like the Hulk, bystanders are never harmed.

max punisher recently put a gun to his own head when he mistakenly thought he had accidentaly killed a girl.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I can just picture him now, screaming "JUSTICE" when The Joker is busted out of prison, for the twelve millionth time. Then he screams "SWWWWEEEET VICTORY OF JUSTICE! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" when he stumbles upon the mutilated bodies of Joker's the obvious "Justice Served" at the hands of Batman.

That, or Batman whispers into the victim's ear (which is no longer attached to the head of the body), "eat my justice, bitches. Tastes good, doesn't it?" this post doesn't even manage to pull some shock value

Originally posted by 753
As I understand it, neither 616 nor max punisher have ever killed civilians. He's like the Hulk, bystanders are never harmed.

max punisher recently put a gun to his own head when he mistakenly thought he had accidentaly killed a girl.

Max Punisher started sucking after Ennis stopped writing it, so I stopped reading it, has that changed?

Originally posted by inimalist
it is mandatory for adult males in switzerland to own loaded pistols or assault rifles

they have so little gun crime that statistics aren't really kept

The UN found that 35% of homocides in Switzerland and commited using guns that that their total rate of homocide was higher than in the UK, Germany and Ukraine.

That analysis also tends to ignore that the Swiss model isn't simple "everyone has to own a gun" it is "everyone has to join the army and have a gun".

Originally posted by Bardock42
Max Punisher started sucking after Ennis stopped writing it, so I stopped reading it, has that changed? It's awesome now. they've relaunched it as punishermax. the tenth issue should be already out.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The UN found that 35% of homocides in Switzerland and commited using guns that that their total rate of homocide was higher than in the UK, Germany and Ukraine.

really? when did they do that? I remember seeing stuff from the BBC only a few years ago saying that the only gun related stat that neared other nations was that of suicide...

though, now that I'm thinking about it, they may have only been comparing to the Americans...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That analysis also tends to ignore that the Swiss model isn't simple "everyone has to own a gun" it is "everyone has to join the army and have a gun".

I didn't mean to imply the social contexts were the same

Originally posted by 753
It's awesome now. they've relaunched it as punishermax. the tenth issue should be already out.

it lacks a certain "je-ne-sais-qais" compared to the Ennis MAX I find, but it is good

Originally posted by 753
this post doesn't even manage to pull some shock value

WHEW! What a relief because that wasn't my intention at all. But did you get the point?

Yeah I got it. I don't agree with most superheores perceptions of justice either. That wasn't what I was getting at.

Originally posted by 753
Yeah I got it. I don't agree with most superheores perceptions of justice either. That wasn't what I was getting at.

What you were getting at was obvious and addressed already in my post.

But, I'll address your point even more directly:


The day that I believe I can shock an adult (who is well versed in movies, comics, and books) on a movie message board with a very brief description of some violence, is the day I have gotten Alzheimers.

Originally posted by inimalist
really? when did they do that? I remember seeing stuff from the BBC only a few years ago saying that the only gun related stat that neared other nations was that of suicide...

though, now that I'm thinking about it, they may have only been comparing to the Americans...



I didn't mean to imply the social contexts were the same



it lacks a certain "je-ne-sais-qais" compared to the Ennis MAX I find, but it is good It's less politicized, true, and i miss the echoes of the cold war angle. But I found it psychologically richer and am digging the redesign of the 616 characters. Kingpin and specially Bullseye turned out great.

Besides, the Ennis arc had succefully run its course as it explored the intertwining of crime and politics and the often criminal nature of politics themselves. The final arc also completed a theme Ennis began early by going through each of the most notorious international criminal networks operating in the usa - in a way, each presenting an ethnicity composing the american population - and wrapped it up with an all american wasp criminal gang, the establishment itself. If he had continued it I think quality would begin suffering.

Originally posted by 753
It's less politicized, true, and i miss the echoes of the cold war angle. But I found it psychologically richer and am digging the redesign of the 616 characters. Kingpin and specially Bullseye turned out great.

Besides, the Ennis arc had succefully run its course as it explored the intertwining of crime and politics and the often criminal nature of politics themselves. The final arc also completed a theme Ennis began early by going through each of the most notorious international criminal networks operating in the usa - in a way, each presenting an ethnicity composing the american population - and wrapped it up with an all american wasp criminal gang, the establishment itself. If he had continued it I think quality would begin suffering.

I've only read a couple of the new MAX issues, "happy endings" I think was one that I wasn't overly impressed with, so I will have to check it out (I dont even know if happy endings was part of the series proper, or just a one-shot in the MAX title).

I agree with what you are saying about Ennis though. I generally prefer mini-series and one shot stories, because they do have a specific goal in mind, and the sort of monthly-serial style does tend to "force" writers to come up with less inspired stuff. I'm not saying he should have been kept on to keep writing it, just that it has set a high standard for other Punisher work.

I liked happy endings, specially the ending. that was a one-shot though. every month they're releasing a one-shot that develops some random character in the periphery of the punisher universe and how he impacts their lives.

the actual max series was relaunched as maxpunisher and started with the introduction of wilson fisk as the would be kingpin. Bullseye has also been redesigned for the series, the concept is perfect.

I honestly didn't get to the end, I found the hooker/wimp dynamic a little lacking, I'll give it another shot though

I'll definatly look up the regular series though, thanks for the advice. Kingpin is a great character

Originally posted by inimalist
really? when did they do that? I remember seeing stuff from the BBC only a few years ago saying that the only gun related stat that neared other nations was that of suicide...

though, now that I'm thinking about it, they may have only been comparing to the Americans.

Way back in 2000.
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc.pdf

Completely destroys the platitude that "an armed society is a polite society" right along with the notion that guns cause crime/murder. There seems to be very little correlation.

Incidentally, Swizterland banned the storing of ammunition outside of armouries a few years back. It's part of their tackling of the gun murder problem. There have been several high profile shootings in the last decade done with those assault rifles. It's all change there.

inimalist, your info dates from 2000. Even then, it wasn't particularly true, as SC has shown, but it's changed drastically since. But even back then, they had roughly the same number of fatal shootings as the UK did, with not much above a tenth of the population.

However, I think this is all getting a bit off topic. Gun crime is vaguely related, but let's keep the comic book talk to the relevant section.

ya, the BBC article I was talking about is from 2001, and now that I read it again, far more hyperbole than statistics

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm

No because someone who commits a capital crime like murder deserves nothing less to happen to him.

No, it isn't. And I've said it before...capital punishment should be expanded for some crimes beyond murder as well.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
No, it isn't. And I've said it before...capital punishment should be expanded for some crimes beyond murder as well.

What crimes would you choose?

Originally posted by Bardock42
What crimes would you choose?

Child Rape, Extreme Animal Cruelty. Someone like Bernie Madoff who ****s a lot of people out of a lot of money.....people who don't tip(just kidding) and probably a few others.

Televangelists?

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Extreme Animal Cruelty

sigh

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Extreme Animal Cruelty Co-signed