Are no-kill codes outdated?

Killing has always been, and will always be illegal.

Yes.

that's a really good point, I pretty much agree with everything there

Yes and no. I mean with Batman its a little to ridiculous and his not killing Joker makes him in a sense a aider and abetter of his psycho killings. Just because Batman's my favorite doesn't mean I can't see the fact.

I thing what I mean is best summarized in the following statement.

I mean that's the take the Marvel Movies are doing. Captain America killed a couple of people in Avenger

I don't think so. Take the Nolan Batman movies for example. They are basically based on Batman's "no kill" code, and it works.

The legality is irrelevant. Superheroes, by their very premise, are illegal. It's the acknowledged gap between legality and morality. Whether it's legal or not is not the question.

@blackadamftw:

Actually they're about how impractical his no kill rules are.

In the comics, Batman would save Joker's life.

In the movies, he's aware that saving someone that's trying to destroy an entire city and would likely do it again if he got the chance is really a stupid thing to do.

I don't think the "no-kill code" is outdated. I think there is a time and a place for everything, and we need heroes to have that "no-kill code" but at the same time we do need an executioner. We also need to succumb that doesn't mean succumb to one thing, I mean succumb to defeat or to killing.

Uncanny X-Force(Remender's) touched on this subject quite a bit since they were basically a X-Men Black Ops team dedicated to killing to save millions. Situations presented of killing a child to save billions, killing a sibling to save billions, killing a son to save billions, and killing for revenge. For me I love the Uncanny X-Force.

( + )

Not for Superman or Batman, no.

Exactly. I was watching a coverage of the Boston bombings a while back on youtube, and there was a comment where I guy said "it's only 3 deaths". I mean I was like wow has society really gotten used to the idea of death?

I'd love to see a "What-If" story that had Bruce Wayne watching the Joker's trial on TV and when the judge announces the death penalty, he just throws his hands up in the air and gives an exasperated, "FINALLY!!"

I really find it hilarious that people can actually keep a straight face while saying that Batman is responsible for all the Joker's victims because he won't murder him. Batman catches these guys and delivers them, gift-wrapped, for the proper authorities. Why aren't they equally responsible? The courts are just as aware of the Joker's continued threat to innocent lives. Why don't they just fry him? They can do that legally. And I'm sure that Batman wouldn't lift a finger to stop it.

I find it strange that many people seem to LIKE the idea of some mysterious, unknown person executing their own idea of justice. For me, that would be really unnerving.

And criminals HAVE died fighting the likes of Batman and Superman. Supes just hasn't ever defeated someone and then said, "y'know what? I think yer too dangerous to live, so I'm going to heat vision your face off in cold-blood".

I don't have a problem with heroes who kill, but I also think that heroes who don't should always be around.

And, as someone mentioned earlier, the REAL reason that many heroes don't kill is because they need to keep the popular villains around to sell comics.

...

A little. I recently watched Superman vs the Elites. Now, don't get me wrong: I don't want to see Superman killing people. But the Elites were doing as the public wanted and what the government appeared to be leaning toward. Who is Superman to pass judgement on them? I just felt like he turned the heroes into villains. For the most part, I really found myself siding with the Elites.

Moral of that movie is: killing is bad, but forced legitimization is totally fine.