Log in or sign up to comment
Edited by Kairan1979

Superheroes are the people who supposed to do what the police or the army is unable to do. If you made a choice to become a superhero, if you accepted the responsiblility for the world, or at least a part of it, don't do if halfway. Be ready to make diffucult choices. Kill terrorists who use the politics to avoid being prosecuted. Kill Mafia bosses who bribe and threaten to make sure they'll never be convicted for their crimes. Wipe out the sadistic scientists who get the carte blanche to torture people from the government. Overthrow the government if it became the tyranny. And be ready to fight the men who are "just following orders".

Edited by NorrinBoltagonPrime21

There are two main problems if every hero adopted an all kill code.

The first one is taking the law into their own hands. If every criminal was killed for committing an act of crime, that would be messing with the law. The hero has no right to determine who has the right to live or not, that's up to the courts. Heroes are allowed to exist because they are able to put down the villain while trying to save as many lives as possible, effectively doing the police's job in taking down a criminal. The police force doesn't have the right to determine who is allowed to live, that goes for the hero as well. Every villain has the right to due process and their fate will be determined in a trial, not by the hero. If the hero keeps killing every criminal he sees, the hero will become just as bad the criminal for taking the law into his own hands like that and effectively becoming a murderer.

The second problem is there wouldn't be as many interesting villains. If every villain would be getting killed on the first issue or old villains getting killed would get boring. We all have our favorite villain and the only reason why he have that villain is the fact that the hero chose not to kill that villain allowing them to return. Great villains like joker, thanos, megatron, etc wouldn't exist anymore because they're dead, and trying to create a great villain to last one issue or story arc wouldn't turn out as great. It's a fictional world and thats why the villain is always defeated and always survives.

Edited by Jorgevy
@veshark said:

The fact that Batman doesn't execute his criminals is what makes law enforcement tolerate his presence.

I think so too...

@lvenger said:

Besides how hypocritical is it to stop a killer by killing him/her? It's a fallacious argument to propose.

true as well.
on efficiency matters though, does killing really make the number of future crimes go down? or could it actually become the fulcrum to further crime? revenge, lost of faith, so many reasons why killing a villain or criminal could actually potentiate more crimes...
I dont think the efficiency of both methods in comparison is as clear cut as some people think it is
Posted by Strider92

@lvenger: Despite how hypocritical it maybe you can't deny that "Killing Codes" are overall more effective at preventing future crimes. Not saying which is better just stating what i'm seeing.

Posted by Lvenger

I find the killing code to be outdated. Killing is killing and you can't justify it in any way, shape or form. It's far easier to steep to such tactics but it's stronger to recognise ending another's life is something we should not do. Besides how hypocritical is it to stop a killer by killing him/her? It's a fallacious argument to propose.

Posted by New_World_Order
Posted by BlueLantern1995
Posted by comicace3

totally agree with the op.

Posted by Veshark

I don't want to get embroiled in this debate again. But the way I see this Batman v. Joker situation is this:

The fact that Batman doesn't execute his criminals is what makes law enforcement tolerate his presence. They appreciate that he can bend the rules and resolve situations that they otherwise cannot, so they give him leeway to hunt after criminals and save lives, even though he has no legal jurisdiction and no actual accountability. But bending the rules and killing are two entirely different things - murder is not something you can take back. Making a judgment call about who deserves to live isn't Batman's job. His job is to save lives and capture criminals that conventional police can't handle, and his training allows him to do this without resorting to murder. The rest is up to the courts.

Now one could say on an ethical basis that Batman - being in the position to kill the Joker - has a moral obligation to kill the Joker, to spare all of the lives that the Joker will inevitably take in the future. But doesn't a court of law actually have not just the moral, but also the legal obligation to deliver Joker's sentence? If the DCU was a perfect world, the court would realize that Joker is clearly not insane, based on his clear capability to murder with intent, and put the clown on death row. But the fact of the matter is that these are comic books, and so naturally this 'insanity defense nonsense' is always gonna play out, and the Joker is always going to return. It's the cyclical nature of superhero stories.

Posted by Jonny_Anonymous

No Kill Codes exist because of comic regulation, before comics where forced to reduce the amount of violence in them pepole like Batman where shooting pepole in the face just like everybody else also....

Some Pepole Just Need Killing - Solid Snake

Posted by Nerx


Well it is just as outdated as the idea of maintaining a status quo that resembles our world when the heroes have the technology/magic/powers to improve society.

The golden age is a great time when heroes used their powers to improve their settings, but then after the 90's writers want more angst.

the problem is they use a 'real world' mentality to deal with superhero problems, if I had my way 9/11 should have never taken place in comics.