Batman and Philosophy V: Should We Act Outside of the Law to Protect Our Towns?

[Razor]

Norcal wants them back, so he's got them back. He better damn well post in this thread as well.

Link to the Book. Copyright, you see.

I'm going to try a new way of formatting the posts. Maybe it'll help everyone follow along. I know I get a bit ranty as the post goes on.

Argument

Batman does what he does out of a standing obligation to defend Gotham. However, he does so outside of the government. I hold that Batman isn't really breaking the law, but upholding it through his actions.

A major line throughout Batman's story arcs is his continued clash with the United States and Gotham government. We will explore this, and see if Batman really, truly is no better than the men he fights.

Legitimacy and Violence

Superman is an alien from Krypton. Woohoo. While both Batman and Superman fight crime, they differ in one major aspect. Superman respects the government as it stands. He doesn't try to circumvent the law or operate outside of it. The government, in turn, authorizes Superman to act violently in the role of Government. He is legitimized.

Batman, however, is not.

Batman operates outside of the government. He holds that the government is the Jury and Executioner, but Batman reserves the right to capture/fight villains, stop their enterprises, and give them to the government if he deems the activities deleterious to Gotham.

Batman has a very specific clash with Superman in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller.

Superman protects Gotham from a nuclear bomb via violence and other tomfoolery. This is alright, because he is legitimized through the United States government. Superman confronts Batman about his activities, and accuses him of breaking and undermining the law. Superman is confused by Batman, who utters:

Sure we're criminals....We've always been criminals. We have to be criminals.

Superman rejects this reasoning, and stands firm in his resolve that Government is the highest law of the land that everyone should follow. This is highlighted when Superman later, under Federal Order, finds and tries to arrest Batman. Batman has a plan, in which he gets teh Green Arrow to shoot Superman with a Kryptonite arrow after he makes Superman believe he was killed. Batman's death is assumed by Superman, though it did not come about.

Superman fighting Batman shows the conflict most effectively. Batman, who breaks the law in order to uphold it, against Superman, an alien who believes that the Law is the highest order of virtue.

Max Weber

This German sociologist claims that the state is:

..the institution that holds a monopoly on legitimate use of coercion in a given territory. Through police and military, the state -- and only the state -- may enforce authority. The use of violence by nonstate actors (terrorists, revolutionaries, criminals, vigilantes) occurs, and may even be understandable on occasion, but it can never be legitimate. Most superheroes, even unintentionally, play a subversive role because very few are officially licensed or commissioned by the state to use coercion to guard public order.

He didn't make the statement about Superheroes, by the by. No sociologists is ever that cool. I was quick the book, as it were.

So, Batman can be argued as the most subversive of the bunch. He not only disrupts the government monopoly on violence, but he uses it in addition to the state's use of violence. And he shows them up. He regularly stops criminals, and finds evidence that the cops could never have even dreamed of.

Batman is depicted as an agent that is outside and above the law, despite his obvious inclinations to let the state try and convict criminals. He states on numerous occasions that he is not the one trying these criminals, merely bringing them in. But by the very act of subduing these criminals through force he is harming the government. This is why he is hunted so vehemently. Disregard what The Dark Knight may have shown you.

Hobbes and Gotham, This is Going to be Fun

Batman is born out of a failure of the state. Young Bruce Wayne assumed that the state would keep his parents safe from muggers and gunmen. Sadly, his trust was misplaced. So Bruce Wayne makes a promise on his parent's grave that he shall avenge their deaths. Essentially, Bruce Wayne is promising to fill the gap left by the insufferable and incompetent police.

Now, onto Hobbes. Hobbes argues that a government is there to enforce order. That life without government is

solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. ~~Leviathan

In Batman Year One, Commissioner Loeb runs a Gotham in Hobbesian disorder. It is ungovernable, crime is rampant, and the police are accepting bribes. Loeb ignores Batman until Batman raids a private dinner party full of corrupt politicians (including Loeb), threatening them if they do not stop their corrupt ways.

Batman is shown as a corrective force in a world of Hobbesian disorder. For his credit, then transfer Lieutenant Gordon is shown as a force that wants to act as Batman...but can't quite see how to combat the sheer amount of corruption.

No, Not Every Hobbesian Nightmare Spawns Batman

Introducing the Reaper.

The Reaper is a villain from Batman: Year Two. His origin story is similar to Batman's, in that he to trusted the state to protect his family. That trust is sorely misplaced, as his wife is killed and his daughter is assaulted. Caspian, now the Reaper, decides to bring order through killing four muggers. He responds to the intended muggee:

You have nothing to fear. Tell the world that the Reaper has returned...and will save this city-- with its consent, or without.

Later, the Batman finds the Reaper going after a prostitute. The Reaper quips:

The Batman, eh? They say you continue the fight I began. If so, prove it now-- stand aside.

Batman, of course, refuses. He accuses the Reaper of standing for "wholesale slaughter," not justice.

Harvey Dent, also known as the Two-Face, is another example. He was a successful, passionate attorney for the city of Gotham. Sadly, after the government failed to protect him from a gangster with some acid and a bad case of the "I just lost and am going to jail"s, Dent turns into a criminally insane mass murderer.

To Sum Up

Batman is an undermining force because he acts as a force above and independent of the Law. His actions are illegal, and the state treats them as such.

However, this thread is to ask this question. Is the Batman right in undermining the government? Is this ever okay? Should the Batman hang up the cape, turn himself into the authorities, or actually take the fight to the Government itself? Should we, as citizens, always defer to the State to fight our battles? Is the Batman as harmful to the order of things as the Joker? Mr. Freeze? Penguin? Stake your claim.

 

[BladeRunner]

If the government does not uphold the rights the people hold dear, then it is not representing the people. If the government is not representing the people, the people have a right to rebel.

Yes, a superhero is subversive to the state.

Any actions using force is subverting the state.

But if the people are crying out for justice, and the government is corrupt and rotting and does nothing for the people, nor represent their interests, what is there left but for people to make their own governments using force?

Rebellions can be just if they're truly in the name of the people and by the people. This is what national soverignty is about.

Think of our American rebellion for instance against the terrible tax burden of the British.

"Taxation without representation"

 

[Poɘt]

BladeRunner pretty much made all the good points about why Batman (or any vigilante) acting outside the law is justified if the authority isn't representing the people by not better enforcing the law.

Now that leads to the question of how Batman is different from the villains he encounters. What makes him different is that he's enforcing laws that everyone is expected to abide by. The villains on the other hand are acting against those laws.

With that said, I'm not sure how to justify the actions of Batman without feeling I need to understand the actions of the villains who feel they have the right to change the law. But I guess that's a different topic all together.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Absolutely it is justified. If you see a woman being raped, do you merely stand aside, and not rock that fucker into next week? simply becuase you arent a cop? fuck no you don't. This entire nation was built on the backbone of vigilantism.

I would never hesitate to step outside of the law to do what is right, and just, and to protect the weak. Batman is absulutely justified, and so is anyone else who will take a stand when there is no one else around who will.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Famed social anthropologist and media star, Margaet Mead once stated, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

In that vein, Batman reaches out to Gotham to help in an attempt to clean the city, but he also does so with selfish motives. I think that this argument branches off in two directions. While you use Hobbes to make your point, I think that this is more of Kantian struggle. If you think he is doing the work for the good of Gotham, then the categorical imperative justifies his actions.

I am paraphrasing here. First of all, he acts as if his actions could be made universal as law. I don't think there is anyone who alive who thinks that Batman's actions could not be considered worthy of being legal. Batman acts as if his actions are legal. He does not question his motives.


Or does he? He works in a disguise. He works at night. He runs from the police. Can his actions be considered moral? And, if not, then should we not cede this responsibility and right of nature to the government? According to Locke, when a man enters into a social contract, he tacitly consents to allow the government to worry about his protection in exchange for the promise that he will not violate the terms set forth by the government to maintain order.

We have to examine whether or not Batman is existing within the social order to maintain, or acting outside of the social order.

Think about it this way. Counterfeiting money is illegal, even if I give all of it to the government to pay our national debt. It depends on point of view. I am leaning towards Batman's personal morality feeling as if he acts within the bounds of society by maintaining an order that the government cannot. He values order over law, and law does not exist without order, therefore, he acts on behalf of the law.


The second formulation of the categorical imperative notes that man cannot be used as a means to an end. It's simple to assume that Batman is committing selfless acts to maintain the order he values, however, there is a different interpretation. The underlying theme of Batman is that a man who was beyond saving has chosen to fight crime to find his own salvation. If you buy into this theory, Kant would argue that Batman is being immoral.

Kant would argue that Batman is using the criminals as a mean to an end. Batman is going out and fighting crime and cleaning the streets, but he is doing so to get revenge on the city that took his family. Selfless or selfish? This is the moral quandary in relation to Batman's motivation. Now, how does this answer the question posed in the original post?

Simply, if Batman is acting selflessly, then he defending the city out of goodness. The law is only as strict as those upholding it. If they choose to stretch the definition of the law, or look the other way, then there is no need to consider Batman an outlaw or a criminal. However, if he is acting selfishly, then you would have to assume that the law cannot be bent in that his revenge actions could put people in danger. Much the same as Spiderman, our hero needs to prove himself a worthy defender of the people before he can be given carte blanche to do so.


Kant's third formulations asks us to only consider actions moral if they can be univeralized by rational beings. Does the city of Gotham love or hate Batman? Should the morality of his actions be considered based on the whims of the people? At times Batman is a hero to the people, at other times a villain. Basically, Kant would ask if the people want Batman. If the people do want him, then it can be considered moral to act in the way he does. We live in a society that is supposed to be based upon the will of the people, and if the will of the people is to have Batman be the primary actor in their defense from local enemies, then Batman should be considered within the law. However, if the people see Batman as the reason behind their ills, as they do at the end of The Dark Knight, then should we not view Batman as an outlaw?

Kant asks us to look at perspective in moral situations. Is Batman to be considered a moral and willful actor of the people, or is he a selfish actor with the means to take his revenge fantasy out on a city of the unwilling in order to fulfill his hero fetish?

I would argue that Batman is a hero acting within the will of the people for the better of society. I think that the city he grew up, the city that swallowed his family, has somehow, in his jaded perspective, gotten worse. Wayne is able to recall the pain and fights so that no one else has to fill that. The most important clue to his selflessness is his refusal to kill. If he were trying to take out revenge on all immoral beings, he would kill them, an eye for an eye. The fact that he doesn't kill shows that he is cleaning the streets for society, not for hate.

I believe that Batman fulfills the standards set forth by Kant, by Locke, and by society as a whole. I believe that he used man as an end, and protects him. I believe he acts in a manner that he believes is within the law because it is within the will of the people. I believe that he understands that because he steps outside the bounds of a social contract, the he alone assumes the risk of these actions, but he does so to maintain order, because without order there can be no law.

 

[Dragonslayer]

Very interesting topic! Well, I would like to start off with a very elementary look at "societies" as we know it in liberal, western countries. A society is made up for a large number of people who decide they want to live together in a certain region, in order to achieve more and better things than they could if everyone was on their own. So far, so simple.

Now, in order to organize such societies, you naturally need rules that govern the coexistence of such a myriad of people; without these rules, we all know what would happen: Anarchy, chaos, and those people with more power would dominate those with less - the law of the street, so to speak. So, a set of rules is needed - a set we all know as "the law", no matter how it may differ from country tocounrty - and there is also the necessity of a working system and infrastructure behind it to exercise this law by force, if invidiuals trespass against the rules, in order to secure the ongoing benefit of all, and the existence of the "society" as a whole. And this infrastructure, this "entity", we usually know as a "state", as "the government": The (through elections) legimitized entity that is empowered by "the people" to lay dawn laws and enforce them.

Now of course, no system is perfect, and as we all know - and as is more than vividly illustrated in "Gotham City" - the government can never solve ALL crimes, or prevent ALL crimes. There simply are not enough resources for the government to monitor life to such an extent - and besides, especially in liberal societies that try to constitute individual rights of people also vis-á-vis the state/government, in terms of rights such as the right to freedom of speech, personal freedom, the right to privacy, etc etc etc. Every society needs to define for itself where it draws the lines when it comes to

1) Which actions are regarded as acceptable/legal
2) What are the consequences when the law is trespassed against
3) Where that line comes where the government is no longer allowed (by ways of self-restraint) to intervene in the lives of the members of the society

Now, this is just a very basic rought-cut so to speak... but it would really go too far to go into every and all aspects, heh.

To make a long story short, in any case, let us now introduce into this (theoretically functioning) society: The Batman.

Someone who operates beyond the freedom that the specific law system of the society he operates within allows its members, thus technically breaking the law itself.

Now it has been argued that Batman's vigilantism is justified because it is necessary, as the government of Gotham City is obviously not capable of taking care of its problems itself. Now this is all quite sensible, however the problem is - once you accept the actions of Batman as justified, you basically agree to completely abolish your legal system; regardless of whether that system works sufficiently or not.

The problem is that obviously, with the way the people's (very mixed) reactions to Batman's actions are portrayed in the stories, the people living in that society obviously do not mistrust its government to such an extent that they want to abolish it / change it - which is something Batman is basically suggesting. By doing "what is necessary" to bring to justice those who break the law, without (or almost without) regard for the rules of the specific government he is trying to help/protect, he acts as though he would wish that his actions were in fact NOT outside the law, but legal - in the sense of Kant's imperative, as has been mentioned.

So while his motives may be quite noble, by ignoring the laws of the very society he is trying to protect, he of course undermines the very system that society is built upon, which is - in my opinion - quite problematic.

For without this set of rules, and if this set of rules is not respected, there just is no possibility for people leaving together in a peaceful environment - which is the aim of any society, as stated above. Because when you claim that Batman is justified in his action, regardless of whether they would be considered "illegal", the gates are opened wide for the "law of the street" once again, the very same status of anarchy and chaos that the formation of a society tries to work against in the first place.

Because imagine there is not ONE Batman, but a hundred. Or a thousand. And everyone has their own agendas, everyone is invading in people's privacy, in people's lives; people just would never be able to feel safe anymore, as they would live in a "society" where the government and/or the people itself are no longer bound by law; because once again, those people will dictate the law that have the power to do so. Batman is a powerful figure; he has the money to develop all kinds of technical equipment that gives him an edge over other people; he has means to invade people's lives to an extent that is nothing short of scary (see for example his surveillance system in "The Dark Knight"!) - because if we're honest, no one of us would want to live in a society where the government - or a "legitimized" figure such as the Batman, if you condone his actions as merited by his motives - has such an extent of power to intrude into our lives!

It would either result in a perversion of a "police state", where everyone just does everything he/she wants, and as said - he who is stronger will dictate his will unto others. So Batman does never straight out kill anybody; but - so what? He does pretty much about everything else; and if you would justify that, where WILL you draw the line? Would you also justify killing somebody, if no other option is open to you?

And now I am not talking about a situation that NorCal addressed - namely self defense or related situation. I believe NorCal gave as example the situation of someone witnessing a woman getting raped, and he claims that of course it is justified if someone interferes, regardless if he is a cop. And I agree - OF COURSE it is justified, but because justification for precisely such situations is provided for in (most) legal systems! The example of self-defense is the most simple one: Naturally, killing someone is illegal. However, if you kill someone because that person is attacking you, and you have no other option to divert that attack and save your own life, then you are justified if you defend yourself, even if you kill the attacker. The main difference between such situations, though, and some of the things the Batman character does, is that things like self-defense or the helping of people who are being attacked and cannot defend themselves are only justified, if there IS NO OTHER way to divert the attack IN THAT VERY MOMENT when a quick and immediate reaction is required; and that the way one diverts the attack is not disproportionate to the "good" (e.g. human life, but also "merely" property etc...) that is to be saved.

Because you will be justified if you kill someone who is also trying to kill you, but if you kill someone because that person is trying to steal your wallet, you may not be justified (this may of course be different in various legal systems), depending on the particular situation, as the taking of a person's life in exchange for maybe a few hundred dollars could seem inappropriate. Especially so if there would have been other ways of fighting off the particular attack. But of course, as said - that depends very much on the specific case.

But if Batman seeks out some gangster, tortures them a little by use of physical violence in order to obtain information - that cannot be regarded as "legitimized", especially because the law does not provide for such situations; and moreover, is precisely designed to PREVENT such actions. Because an act like this is not an immediate reaction to a threat against life or another good that society places a great value on; but a deliberately planned violation of the law; even if it IS used to obtain information that could lead to a big crime boss getting captured, as an example. But, not all ends can justify all means, I'd say.

So, to get back to Batman - now while things such as self-defense are justified because the LAW ITSELF provides for these justifications, if there are no other ways of protecting certain goods, Batman sometimes goes to lengths that would obviously seem excessive. And it is here that I think one would need to draw the line, and ask oneself: "How much leeway do I wish to give someone (especially someone who is not a member of "the government", i.e. a "Joe Everyman", but also the government itself!) in intervening in people's lives to achieve his ends, no matter how good his intentions may be? Because, I'd always have to think about that next time, it might be MY life that this person is intruding in in such a grave way.

So I think this is really the main point people should keep in mind when talking about the "Batman situation"; at least that's the point that strikes me as very important at a first glance.

Because it is very easy to say "Yes of course vigilantism is good/important", but you always have to keep in mind where you draw the line. Because if you decide to negate the rules of a society, you do precisely that: the rules of a society are negated, and this society does not function any more. To then say that well, Batman may be acting outside of the law, but only to bring outlaws to justice (when the irony is that he himself becomes an outlaw in the process) - what exactly is this "justice" worth if it cannot be executed by the institution it SHOULD be executed by, the government? This, in the end, will be no constitutionally or legally justified "justice" anymore, as the true legally justified "justice" is - obviously - not capable of achieving the same results as someone could achieve if he works "outside" of the legal system. But in the same breath you'd have to question what you'd need/want a legal system for in the first place, if you then negate it anyway, and take an individual's (Batman's) personal whim as justification of his actions that are in no way justified by the "constitution"/legal system/set of rules (which is the very foundation of the society, as stated early on) that govern the society? In fact, you'd end up with having no society at all; no "state" as we know it, governed by laws, but once again - the laws of those who have the power to enforce it (because they are bigger, stronger, have more money than others and can thus force their will onto them etc...), and not those who are legitimized by the people (in a democracy!) to a) lay down the set of rules the society must function within and b) are legitimized to be the SINGLE entity who also is authorized to enforce these rules by use of violence, and by imposing limitations/restriction on the society member's rights.

So I guess this really a pretty interesting subject... and in the case of Batman and his effects on a legal systems/a state, I guess I'd like to close with the old saying: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Because no matter how noble Batman's intentions may be - if he negates the government as such in the process, if he undermines the government's authority, there is no telling where the whole mess will end.

So, sorry for the long rant - but I imagine no one will read it who isn't really interested in the subject anyway

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

Superman is an alien from Krypton. Woohoo. While both Batman and Superman fight crime, they differ in one major aspect. Superman respects the government as it stands. He doesn't try to circumvent the law or operate outside of it. The government, in turn, authorizes Superman to act violently in the role of Government. He is legitimized.

To be fair, even if the U.S. wanted to stop Superman, they probably couldn't. The DCU must count their lucky stars that he was raised by simple Kansas folk, because if he'd been raised by someone like Luthor, he'd have overthrown the Earth decades ago. If you want to see what that would look like, read Superman: Red Son, a story that sees his ship crash in Soviet Russia, and once he gets his powers he becomes the figurehead of the entire Soviet Union and takes over the Earth.

Superman fighting Batman shows the conflict most effectively. Batman, who breaks the law in order to uphold it, against Superman, an alien who believes that the Law is the highest order of virtue.

But Supes still doesn't uphold the law. He doesn't actually follow the guidelines of the law at all in fact. He doesn't conduct investigations, he doesn't compile evidence, and he doesn't seek out warrants before he goes and apprehends people. He repeatedly trespasses on the property of the city's most successful citizen in Lex Luthor, whether he's done anything or not and if Supes was to hear someone getting beaten up in an apartment block, rather than report it, he'll just smash through the wall, incapacitate the assailant, and then haul them off to prison.

Is that upholding the law? Sure the victim was saved, but Supes has completely skipped the entire procedure to apprehend the culprit. If a cop did that he'd be stripped of his badge and probably face jail time himself.

However, there is one other BIG difference between fighting crime in Gotham, and fighting crime in Metropolis.

Supes more often than not, is fighting a giant robot, or alien warlords, or Gods from other universes. Bats is fighting insane lunatics with the exception of guys like Croc and Clayface. So the M.S.C.U (Metropolis Special Crimes Unit) isn't going to be much use against a raging Metallo or a wave of Darkseid's Parademons, no matter what they may believe otherwise, so they have to rely on Supes.

Whereas the Gotham politicians don't want to rely on Batman, but also have no faith in the G.C.P.D. (plus, most of them have been corrupt anyway). They think that Gordon should be able to handle Freeze attacking people at random in the streets, or Poison Ivy holding an entire building hostage with killer plants, with nothing but guns and tear gas.

The Metropolis cops would do all they could, if they didn't know they'd get killed in seconds, so they leave it up to Supes because he's happy to do so.

There's only about 4 Gotham Cops in the entire city who aren't corrupt (Gordon, Sawyer, Montoya and Bullock) and any other good ones end up being killed by the corrupt ones i.e. Jim Corrigan murdering Crispus Allen. None of them, except maybe Gordon, would have the first idea what to do if they found themselves in the same room as say, The Scarecrow for example. So Gordon's got to rely on Bats, plus he knows that he wouldn't be able to stop Bats anyway.

The Gotham cops are on the take anyway. Some would still defend to their dying breath, and resent Batman interfering, but there's nothing they can do about it.

However, if the people see Batman as the reason behind their ills, as they do at the end of The Dark Knight, then should we not view Batman as an outlaw?

Problem there is, is that the people of Gotham are stupid. They'd have to be, why would anyone want to live in Gotham when a nutcase is on the street every other day trying to destroy the city? In the Dark Knight everyone blamed Batman for what the Joker was doing. Not one of them considered that he may have been doing all that kind of stuff for ages before he decided to take on the Batman. Just because the first time they heard of him was when he filmed that tape promising to kill every night until Batman unmasked, they all seemed to assume that he just got up one afternoon, decided to take on Bats, slashed his mouth open, bought a purple suit, threw some make up on and away he went.

In the comics, the only people who moan about Batman are:

1) the politicians who look bad because they can't control him.
2) the average criminals i.e. the pimps, the dealers because they're likely to wake up in a prison cell beaten baldy and wearing soiled trousers, any night they go out to make some cash.
3) anyone who had a family member die, because they stand there and say 'Where was Batman when me son got shot?'
4) Cops who realise that their jobs are going to get harder

No one else blames Batman for anything. As i've said in previous Bat Philosophy threads, he didn't create ANY of his enemies, EXCEPT the Joker, and Bats isn't even aware of that, and while people do suggest that Batman created them all, or is the reason they come to Gotham, there are an equal number of people who know better.

For example, Tobias Whale, leader of Metropolis gang 'The 100' and member of Intergang (a global crime network) states that gangs have always existed in Gotham, but criminals began wearing masks in Gotham as early as the 1900's. Everyone calls Gotham's villains "Masks" because most of them dress up. Here is an example of a criminal basically shitting on everone's theory that masked villains only appeared AFTER Batman showed up. Hell, most of them became the villain they are today before they ever MET Batman.

With that said, I'm not sure how to justify the actions of Batman without feeling I need to understand the actions of the villains who feel they have the right to change the law.

That shouldn't take long:

Joker: Wants the world to realise that life is the ultimate joke, and it's always on you. He believes in a universe as chaotic as this, insanity is the only sane reaction. He actually wants people to survive the torment he subjects them too, in the hope that they'll go stark raving mad and be just like him, and if they die, that's simply the punchline.

Two-Face: Believes that justice is flawed, and all decisions should be left to fate and chance. 50-50, just like himself. Although i'll point out something Razor didn't. Dent always had dual-personalitites. He was always half good and half bad, except when the acid scarred his face, Evil Harv took over nearly completely. This is evident in The Long Hallowe'en which sees several members of the Falcone crime syndicate get murdered by the 'Holiday Killer'. In the end, the reader discovers that there were actually 3 Holiday killers, none of them actually knowing about each other (although Dent knew he wasn't the only one), and they were Alberto Falcone, Harvey Dent and Dent's wife. All of this transpires in the weeks leading to Dent's disfigurement and eventual transformation into one of Batman's most tragic characters, Two-Face.

The Penguin: Nothing to tell really, he's just a mob boss that has a long nose and has a fixation for birds and umbrellas.

The Mad Hatter: Is completely obsessed with Lewis Carrol's narratives, but more importantly he is obsessed with Hats. Just read Secret Six, when he joins the team. He completely ignores a dripping wet, naked Knockout because he knew she wasn't wearing a hat, and een makes little hats that he puts on fruit! He explains in that story arc that he used to use his mind control circuitry to fill the void in his life, by forcing people to have sex with him, or give up their worldly teasures etc. Then one day he used the circuitry on himself and discovered a euphoric effect similar to hallucinagens, further deepening his insanity.

The Scarecrow: Jonathan Crane is a man who was a slave to fear his entire life. Bullied by just about everyone he ever met, including his family, Jonathan Crane decided to dedicate his life to the study of fear and its implications. After being fired from Gotham U for unsafe and extreme methodolgies, Crane took his knowledge of fear and combined it with his chemical expertise. Having been referred to as a gangly scarecrow all his life, Crane decided to adopt the Scarecrow persona as his own, and has dedicated his life to being the master of fear. Recently he was deputized into the Sinestro Corps, an army that specialises in inducing fear throughout the universe, in opposition to the Green Lantern Corps. Whether he'll still be part of the Sinestro Corps after "Blackest Night" remains to be seen, however i want to include a quote from one of Crane's interview tapes from Batman: Arkham Asylum.

"I don't believe that Professor Crane is truly insane....... he is simply.... evil"

Poison Ivy: Pamela Lillian Isley was a brilliant botanist until her colleague Jason Woodroe exposed her to chemicals that would unintentionally transform her into a living plant, with the abilities to control and manipulate other plants much like animals. Her only true desire is to rid the world of people and rebuild Eden with her being Mother Nature's keeper.

Those are the villains with some of the deepest pschological problems. Freeze wants everyone to suffer the loss he suffered when he was frozen and lost his wife. Croc became a human crocodile and can;t do anything about it, and can't control his animal instincts. Bane just wanted to break the Bat. The Ventriloquist has multiple personlaity disorder. Zsasz is just a serial killer who views everyone as lifeless shells, so therefore it's ok to kill them.

There is a recurring theme for nearly all of Batman's villains. Each of them has suffered a deep, emotional trauma at some point in there lives which has caused their fractured psyches to completely break down, just like Batman did when his parents were killed. Ra's Al Ghul is the only exception.

Every villain suffered a tragedy like Bruce wayne did, but chose a different path forward. Insead of dedicating their lives to the pursuit of justice and stopping further tragedies, they each sought nothing but revenge on a world that has done nothing but beat them down and try to kill them.

So what i'm saying is, the villains don't want to change the law, they want everyone to agree to their own view on life, and if you don't, you're dead basically. In some other cases, there is no room for understanding, you either survive or you don't.

We've sen a bunch of arguments for why Batman is subverting the justice system. I argue that he is fact emphasising the ineffectiveness of the justice system in a place like Gotham, and is actively doing something about it. Gotham only hurts itself by not supporting him.

Normally, the GCPD would have to find a villain, work out what he's trying to do, come up with a plan to catch them, and then implement it without getting people killed, and that takes time. With corrupt politicians and poilce everwhere, it will only take even longer to achieve anything, and by the time any headway is made, part of the city has been overrun, and military suppost is needed.

Batman can do all the investigation and leg work, AND capture one of his enemies in about a fraction of the time, with a minimal number of casualties. There's a fair bit of property damage here and there, but he gets results. And then they go and let the psychopath go because Bats doesn't have a badge, or they're sent to Arkham, which is basically just a mansion with cells in it (trust me, Arkham is nothing like what it looks like in the game. It's not on an island for a start.), where they are treated like the victims rather than the culprits.

Recently Bruce Wayne was "killed off" in DC comics. No longer is the Cape and Cowel worn by Bruce Wayne. However before he "died", Batman was fed false memories while his real ones were harvested to give Darkseid's clone army the determination and experience of Earth's greatest human crime fighter. Anyway, one of the false memories he is given, is one where the Joker is captured by police, after months of killing people, including Dick Grayson, and executed, this was the one and only time that the Joker appeared according to that memory, and when he was caught, they gave him the lethal injection immediately. So why don't they do that in 'real' Gotham? Because the only guy who can catch him is a guy dressed as a bat.

While Superman stands for truth, justice and the American way, Batman shows us the real problems with that exact same system. The concpet these days behind these 2 characters, is that while they seem like polar opposites, they are very much the same. One is a god-like being who upholds our world's ideals in order to maintain justice and order, while the other is born from a grisly murder, and vows to uphold justice and order by doing everything the US justice system does NOT do. Different men, different cities, different views, different methods, same mission.

 

[Tastycles]

The difficulty in comparing Batman to reality is that there are no shades of grey in Batman. The villains are villains, and it isn't as simple as that in real life. Should we act outside the law? Well, if we see a crime in progress and there's not a policeman around, then we should, because we would be doing exactly what the law was doing, were it present.

Outside of that, it's very difficult to dissect. If I see the guy next door bringing a lot of little kids into his house, am I right to beat him up next time I see him? Of course not, I might be beating up the owner of a children's home. Batman can act outside the law because the people he acts against are inherently evil. If Gotham was full of real criminals, then Batman would inevitibly make mistakes. If the real evils of society had such obvious characteristics, then this argument would hold, but they don't, so it doesn't.