There seems to be a skewed image in DC fandom concerning the
events of Batman Begins vs. The Man of Steel.
The battle cry is that Batman doesn’t kill, and that Superman could have
found a way to stop Zod without killing him.
Let’s take this to the courts:
The charge is homicide, and the definition goeth thusly:
Second degree murder usually applies to
cases in which the killing may have been intentional but was not premeditated.
These are often referred to as “crimes of passion.” A common example is the
jealous husband that flies into a homicidal rage and kills his wife and her
lover when he finds them in bed together.
“Some states also consider grossly wanton and reckless
behavior that results in the death of another to be second degree murder. This
applies in situations where one's actions were so wanton and reckless that the
death of another person was almost assured, even if the killing was not
intentional.
Second degree murder is also very serious, and in most
situations the defendant could face decades to life in prison, though the death
sentence is not a possibility in these cases.” (http://www.hg.org/murder.html)
Does this sound familiar?
In Batman Begins, Ra’s Al Ghul has commandeered a commuter train and is
intending to evaporate the city’s water supply and thus spread a fear toxin
through the air causing mass panic and death.
Batman’s response to this is to destroy the train before reaching “the
central hub”. He has Lt. James Gordon
destroy the supports to the tracks and Batman splits the train in half sending
Ra’s Al Ghul and the train plummeting into a parking garage where it explodes,
taking the “microwave emitter” with it.
During this event, Batman escapes, leaving Ra’s in the
runaway train, stating “I’m not going to kill you, but I don’t have to save you
either.” This is not a morally ambiguous
line. This is a lie Batman has just told
himself. According to the above accepted
definition of Second Degree homicide, Batman killed Ra’s Al Ghul. His actions meet the elements of the crime as
defined by Frank Schmallenger’s Criminal
Justice Today: 1. An unlawful
killing (Batman has no legal authority to take a human life), 2. Of a human
being (Ra’s according to the film was human), 3. Intent (Batman intended to have Ra’s die in a
crash), and 4. With Planning (Batman always has a plan).
Now the question to respond with is “Did Batman have a
choice?” As a matter of fact, he
did. It’s never established that the
emergency brake could not be engaged. It’s
never established that the microwave emitter couldn’t be disabled, and despite
popular belief, it would be possible to put Ra’s Al Ghul in prison for his
crimes. Even if you consider the “corrupt
nature” of Gotham’s police force, they would still take a very dim view of a
man trying to annihilate their entire city.
After all, the city he was trying to destroy happens to be the city
those “corrupt” officials happen to live in.
Not only did Batman commit Second Degree Murder, he also
destroyed any evidence that would corroborate the accusation that the League of
Shadows existed or was trying to poison Gotham.
By taking matters into his own hands he actually caused more harm than
good. Further, Lt. Gordon should have
been stripped of his office and put into Federal custody for his criminal
actions in detonating a high explosive in a urban area causing millions of
dollars of damage.
To add to the list of offenses, Batman also committed
attempted manslaughter earlier in the film when questioning Dr. Jonathan
Crane. During his assault on Arkham,
Batman forcefully exposed Crane to his own fear toxin, the same toxin that
threatened to kill the assistant district attorney. Once Batman realized that the dosage was
potentially fatal (never mind that he had already experienced the chemical
compound first hand and understood its dangerous, even life threatening
effects) he made no attempt to notify medical or legal authorities to have them
administer aide to the now poisoned Dr. Crane.
Rather he left him in the Arkham basement to die, driving away now with
full knowledge that Crane could, in fact die from the exposure.
But what about Superman?
Let us examine the case against him. When a small army of super-powered aliens
attempted to take over the Earth, Superman extensively worked with the United
States armed forces (not just one person) to stop them. The actions of said super-powered army caused
a massive amount of destruction.
Superman, by comparision, caused much less by fighting them. This was a war-time event. The aliens were hostile and the military
responded as such. This means that any
deaths caused indirectly by the physical confrontation between the aliens and
Superman would be considered collateral damage.
Further, had the aliens not attempted to take over Earth, none of these
deaths would have occurred. There is
evidence severs the link between Superman and the collateral damage (from a
legal standpoint).
But what about Zod? This
is an area referred to as “justifiable homicide”.
“Justifiable homicide is not murder at all, as it is not
considered criminal. Rather, it is the taking of another's life in
circumstances in which the killing was necessary as the only means of
preventing the murder of one's self or to protect another. Because the killing
was justifiable, the person who committed the killing will not be held
criminally liable for the death, though civil liability may still exist (i.e.
the decedent's family could bring a wrongful death lawsuit).” (http://www.hg.org/murder.html)
At the time of the incident there was no means available of
effectively subduing or detaining Zod.
The military had already exhausted its attempts to detain Superman
earlier, which proved futile. There was
no time or available resources to establish a detainment system to prevent Zod
from continuing his rampage (the Phantom Zone generator having been destroyed
at this point). Superman’s attempt to
steer Zod away from populated areas was futile as Zod was intent on returning
to hot zones in an effort to inflict the most possible damage. Lastly Zod’s next action would have resulted
the immediate death of a family.
Superman’s only recourse to was to end Zod’s life, making it justifiable
homicide. Further, because he was
working with an official representative of the United States armed forces with
authority to move forward with defensive military actions at the time, this
made his actions sanctioned by the military.
Batman, by comparison, coerces James Gordon into becoming an
accomplice. Gordon has no official
authority to enlist the aid of Batman.
Batman functions as a vigilante who while sounding cool, is incredibly
illegal and Gordon actively harbors him and hinders his apprehension.
No comments:
Post a Comment