Rehabilitation

What is the true mark of success for a crime fighter? Is it solving crimes, or is it preventing crime from happening in the first place? Or is it something more?

For some years now, at least since The Dark Knight Returns if not earlier, a persistent fan criticism of Batman is that he just catches criminals, criminals that, thanks to the serial nature of comic books, will merely escape and commit more crimes. This critique seems even stronger as the Joker moved from being a colorfully clad bank robber back to his original conception of serial murderer. In light of those circumstances, says the criticism, Batman should just pull a Punisher and shoot the bastards in the head. It would save lives and a whole lot of time.

But what that criticism misses is that the criminals Batman hunts are, to him, human beings. Human beings with complex inner lives, capable of learning the error of their ways, capable of change and actually improving society. We, the readers, know that they are characters, villains who will play the villain roles forever, but Batman has hope.

And sometimes that hope is even rewarded. Catwoman. The Penguin. The Riddler. Three of Batman's most iconic foes have all, over the past fifteen years, basically abandoned a life of crime. Now, only Catwoman has taken a truly altruistic calling of protecting the East End of Gotham, but nightclub owner and private detective are not bad ways to make a living.

Think about the crimes Edward Nigma himself has solved. Think about the men and women employed, legally, at the Iceberg Lounge. Think about the lives Selina Kyle has saved in her role as midnight vigilante. (or for that matter, the life she gave birth to).

None of that would have been possible if Batman had just offed them the first chance he got.

A great story which hits this idea two ways sideways is the latest issue of Detective Comics. Not only does the main plot feature a Harley Quinn who sincerely wants to reform (or at least seems to), a key flashback is about how, while capable of killing, Batman's rogues are also capable of kindness, fear, sadness, and longing. And occasionally, acts of bravery.

Just as Batman himself has a lot of darkness in him, despite remaining a good guy, his enemies have some light hidden inside them. And given the choice between snuffing out that light in order eradicate the darkness, and letting that light remain in the hopes that it will someday shine through, Batman always chooses the later. Always.

Because Batman can solve crimes, or he can prevent crimes, OR, as a true mark of success as a crime fighter, he can help even his enemies become better people and actually improve the state of the world.

No point in throwing out the Harvey with the Two-Face.

Opposite Man

After reading this interview with Chuck Dixon (which is very good considering it could have been nothing more than a puff piece but instead gets into some real issues) I am a lot more impressed with the man as a writer than I was before. Not for his stance against writing sexual superheroes (a prudish and limiting attitude towards superhero stories that he himself has broken in order to write about teenage pregnancy), but for his ability to NOT inject his own politics into the story he needs to write.

Specifically, he states that he's pro-death penalty, which surprised me, because Joker: The Devil's Advocate is one of the best arguments against the death penalty I have ever read.

Now, I've made no secret of the fact that I'm a Dixon fan but Devil's Advocate is a cut above. Not only does it feature some of Graham Nolan's best art ever, as well as a Joker that is intelligent, vicious, crazy, and actually funny, it presents the ultimate test case for the death penalty: The Joker.

The Joker is guilty; he's irredeemable; he offers nothing to society (which Lex Luthor arguably does or could); and he's a credible future threat. In short, if ANYONE deserves execution, it's the Joker.

And yet... and yet the punchline of the book is that the Joker is actually innocent (of these murders, if not all the other ones) and that executing him would be a mistake! And therefore executing anyone, even the Joker, when you are not 100% certain he did it, would be a mistake as well.

I've used this book as an argument against the death penalty, and to find out its author is actually PRO-death penalty is... surprising, to say the least.

It gives me some hope for the Grifter/Midnighter series, that Dixon can convincingly write a character whose motivations and causes are so different and antithetical to his own. Perhaps more writers should do the same, just to prove that they can.

Maybe they'd learn something.

Jim Corrigan for the Defense

When it comes to discussions of vigilantism, I mean, superheroes, the question always comes up, "Why doesn't he just KILL him?"

Now, besides the fact that it deprives your ongoing series of a good villain, there's also the fact that a lot of people are anti-death penalty, including Batman and me.

I'm not talking about shooting criminals in self-defense or the defense of others (rabid dogs need to be put down), or in the middle of a war. That's fine, justifiable, and darn exciting storytelling. But EXECUTING captured criminals to keep them from escaping and killing again? I just don't hold with that.

Except for this guy:



But he has three major advantages over, say, Manhunter or the Punisher.

One, he's the wrath of God. So there's no question about his authority. God put him in charge, it's God's universe to do with as the Presence wishes, you can't really argue with that.

Two, he's omniscient. So there's no question of his accuracy. The Spectre will never kill an innocent man. No later DNA evidence will exonerate the executed. No false alibi will hide the true criminal. No confession gotten out of duress will convince the Spectre of anything other than the truth. If you're innocent, he knows. And if you're guilty, he REALLY know.

Three, he's dead. So there's no question of his impartiality. The world holds nothing of interest to a man with no body and no real connection to the living. He cannot be bribed. He cannot be threatened. He will not kill a man simply because he does not like him, or his kind of people. He will not increase executions so he can seem tough on crime. He will not decrease them to show concern for a minority group. An intelligence without a physical, fallible brain, the Spectre may be the single most rational being on the planet.

Only a being with the proper authority, absolute knowledge of the murder, and complete disinterest in the outcome of the event should be allowed to say who lives and who dies. Everyone else WILL make a mistake eventually (I cannot believe that the Punisher hasn't killed an innocent person at least once).

Plus, the Spectre gets all creative when he kills people. Anyone can just shoot a guy in the head, or break a neck. It takes someone pretty vicious to turn a doll collection into hungry zombies.