PDA

View Full Version : if your could blow up arkham



krossbow
2008-06-04, 10:57 PM
Would you? This is assuming you were an actual person living in the DC universe's Gotham, and that you, as a person, had the ability (whether through a long project, or a quick opening) to destroy arkham asylum, 100% chance of all the prisoners dying.



Think about it. This building houses some of the most dangerous lunatics in the world. Many of them are irredeemably evil; most of them would qualify for the death penatly. Topping this off, many, if not a majority of them, have escaped from Arkham, and going by trends, WILL escape in the future.

Almost without fail, when people escape from arkham, other, innocent people die. No ifs, ands or buts. Given the trend, by allowing them to live, you are insuring the deaths of more innocent lives. In fact, by allowing them to live, you in turn are ensuring the deaths of innocents.




Given the history of arkham, its security, and its wards, would you feel justified in destroying it and everyone inside of it, or do you feel that morally you would be unable to do this?

Jayngfet
2008-06-04, 11:05 PM
Blow it up, odds are any guards are negligent and would die in an escape anyway.

Enlong
2008-06-04, 11:08 PM
Probably not.

Chances are, if I were to explode Arkham, Batman would probably get catapulted into a story arc about the Joker surviving the explosion due to some slapstick gas that makes him as invulnerable to damage as a cartoon, Or Claface takes over the building's remains, or something.

So no, because the drama-based repercussions are worse then the villains on their own.

Besides, it'd all end up as a "what if" arc anyway.

Hectonkhyres
2008-06-05, 01:45 PM
Yes. Its worth a shot and, even if some prisoners do survive, at least some won't. Even if every prisoner except Joker survived, it would still be worthwhile. I wouldn't even care if I died in the explosion.... or rather it would be an acceptable payment.

Frankly though, I would like to see the Beyonder pop over from Marvel Comics and give each of the villains their own pocket universe in which to do as they please. Just as long as they aren't here.

North
2008-06-05, 02:25 PM
Yesyesyesyesyesyesyesyes.

If I were a gothamite I wouldnt even hesitate. Its really universe induced stupidity that such mass murderers are not killed dead.

My fondest wish would be to put the Punisher in Gotham for a week. One afternoon to kill the rogues gallery. The other 6 days to strike real fear into Gothams underworld.

Xuincherguixe
2008-06-05, 09:56 PM
No. I'm sure it would somehow only make things worse somehow. I'm not sure what that way would be, but it would.

Edan
2008-06-05, 10:17 PM
I can sort of see it playing out like this.

Arkham blows up, but some weird biological and chemical deus ex machina (probably gets a hand wave thanks to all the junk that the prisoners are on) happens so that not only do the prisoners die, but they all become zombies. Cue zombie apocalypse DC style. Just like Marvel Zombies only worse.


Ruling out any events in which things get worse, I would blow it up. They seem to escape all the time and go commit more murders. Any rational prison/state/person would have had them executed long ago.

kpenguin
2008-06-05, 11:56 PM
No... I wouldn't.

Why? Because it took a lot of damn money to build that thing, especially with those special security measures.

Dalenthas
2008-06-06, 12:19 AM
No, because ethically speaking there is a huge difference between actively killing innocents and allowing others to kill them by inaction. And theoretically speaking, the inmates are already 'contained', and to assume that they will escape and kill innocents is extreamly arrogant. Plus, I figure maybe 10% of the people at Arkham are Batman villains, the other 90% are personnelle and genuinely (mentally) sick people. I don't want to be the guy that blew up a building full of dementia patients, thank you.

Sage in the Playground
2008-06-06, 12:59 AM
No, because ethically speaking there is a huge difference between actively killing innocents and allowing others to kill them by inaction. And theoretically speaking, the inmates are already 'contained', and to assume that they will escape and kill innocents is extreamly arrogant. Plus, I figure maybe 10% of the people at Arkham are Batman villains, the other 90% are personnelle and genuinely (mentally) sick people. I don't want to be the guy that blew up a building full of dementia patients, thank you.

Arrogant? It's Arkham. It's all but made of cardboard, with a revolving door.

krossbow
2008-06-06, 01:06 AM
The fact is however, Arkham does not make people better; it drives them sicker. This is easily shown by the villian "the great white" who entered arkham sane, as he believed it was easier than prison, only to find his life immidiately in Jeapordy, and was subsequently mutilated and Driven insane by BOTH inmates and Doctors.


The fact is, the people incarcerated in Arkham are doomed to become worse and worse due to its stewards. Putting them out of their misery would be prefferable to many who stay in there. A large amount of the doctors inside of Arkham are villians in their own right.

Furthermore, Assuming that they will escape would be arrogant were it not for pattern recognition. None of the rogue's gallery imprisoned there has failed to escape. NONE. Moreso, this has occured many, many times per person. WHile one could hope for the best, Arkham simply is rotten to the core. There is almost a 99% assurance that, unless it were changed greatly, one or more of its inmates can and will escape from it in the future.

Laurentio
2008-06-06, 01:43 AM
I wont. Just because I couldn't live with Croc II, Joker Junior, Clayface the Fifth, Two Head's heritage, The Legacy of Penguin, and so on.
Every DC villain is 50% loser, 50% epic. Sequels are 90% losers, 10% worst.

Laurentio

Dryken
2008-06-06, 02:35 AM
I'd work on a complete rehiring of the staff (which will include psychiatric evaluations from outside sources for ALL staff including guards and doctors) and work with some construction workers and architects to go over the old blueprints of the place and reseal any escape routes (like say, an old pipe that leads in to a freakin' garden outside the city).

Laurentio
2008-06-06, 04:39 AM
I'd work on a complete rehiring of the staff (which will include psychiatric evaluations from outside sources for ALL staff including guards and doctors) and work with some construction workers and architects to go over the old blueprints of the place and reseal any escape routes (like say, an old pipe that leads in to a freakin' garden outside the city).
Uhm... ok. I'm with you. But the question is... would you allow the inmates to evacuate during site blow up, BEFORE building it again?

Laurentio

rubakhin
2008-06-06, 05:07 AM
No, no. It would all be well and good until some jerk wandered by ground zero and said "Well, damn. No one could survive that." And then, by the inexorable laws of the storytelling universe, it would turn out they were all secretly vacationing in Yalta.

Also, apathy. And an ardent desire not to be the protagonist of a Moore-wannabe's histrionic Black and Gray Morality (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackAndGrayMorality) arc.

FujinAkari
2008-06-06, 08:28 AM
None of the rogue's gallery imprisoned there has failed to escape. NONE.

Ummmm... DUH?

We define the Rogue's Gallery as those villians who continue to come back to oppose Batman... so OF COURSE they've all escaped. Part of the DEFINITION of the rogue's gallery is THAT they escape.

This is like saying "Every even number is divisible by two. EVERY SINGLE ONE!" Yeah, thats sort of part of the definition of being even :P

Revlid
2008-06-06, 08:43 AM
This is like saying "Every even number is divisible by two. EVERY SINGLE ONE!" Yeah, thats sort of part of the definition of being even :P

No, this is like saying "Every even number is divisible by two. EVERY SINGLE ONE!", in response to someone else saying "It's very arrogant to assume that every even number is divisible by two."

Irenaeus
2008-06-06, 11:05 AM
I was thinking of the other Arkham when I opened this thread. I thought it might not neccesarily be a bad idea.

Dryken
2008-06-06, 12:55 PM
Uhm... ok. I'm with you. But the question is... would you allow the inmates to evacuate during site blow up, BEFORE building it again?

Laurentio

I...don't think I mentioned anything about rebuilding it. If there was an evacuation, obviously that would be the time to escape in which case I might see if I can get the justice league to look over the evacuation process. But other than a complete rebuilding of Arkham, it might be best to just seal up some of the older areas of it by looking through the blueprints.

krossbow
2008-06-06, 03:00 PM
The thing about Arkham is that its not only innefective, it seems to invariably make its inamates worse, twisting them more and more each time they escape. Due to this, one could easily see it, and its staff, as being the SOURCE of much of Gotham's evil. Its staff itself seems to often be insane, or show madness, and their methods are almost always going to worsen the situation (for example, when one of the doctors made the Joker think he had Cancer).



Lets ignore the fact that it houses incredibly dangerous criminals for a second. Lets put aside all the information about its inmates, and examine Arkham for a moment, for it would be destroyed as well.


The problem i'm proposing is this: Even if you fire the staff, tear much of the building down, and Seemingly make it foolproof, it STILL might be irrepperably salvagable.

One of the possibilities hinted at in the Comics, such as the "A Serious House on Serious Earth", is that Either the house, the land, or maybe both, are housing an evil entity. Their is the rumour and the implication that an evil being may in fact inhabit the area, and in such a case, No matter WHAT you do to arkham, or who you hire, the result will always be twisted. The best doctors will inevitably spiral into paranoia or vices, the architects will unwittingly create escape paths, and various "accidents" will allow its inhabitants, warped by their stay, to escape.

This is the batman universe after all. Bruce has encountered demons and the like before, and their is serious implications of occult forces in Gotham. It would not be a stretch for their to truly be an evil entity, such as referenced in serious house, to be at the root of the houses problems.

Lord Galen
2008-06-07, 02:56 AM
If I'm a citizen of Gotham, I'm moving. To New Zealand. Its nice here. You can drink the water without dying with a joker grin and never have to worry about my (or my mum's) house getting blown up if a psycho doesn't solve another psycho's riddle.
There are alternatives to dynamite, all I'm sayin.

Hectonkhyres
2008-06-07, 01:35 PM
If I'm a citizen of Gotham, I'm moving. To New Zealand. Its nice here. You can drink the water without dying with a joker grin and never have to worry about my (or my mum's) house getting blown up if a psycho doesn't solve another psycho's riddle.
There are alternatives to dynamite, all I'm sayin.

Oh, I'm sure you have your own super villains. Like Conglomerate Sheep, the nefarious ewe hivemind entity.

Laurentio
2008-06-07, 02:40 PM
Oh, I'm sure you have your own super villains. Like Conglomerate Sheep, the nefarious ewe hivemind entity.
Non necessarily. There can't be superheroes until a villain or two shows up. Obviously, the moment a superhero take residence there (or is on holiday), there will be a villain. Simple math.

Back to the topic: Arkham is not meant to confine criminals, but to give them time to rest before evading and trying to kill Batman, Gotham City, or both. Yes, it's arrogant - but it's history. So, it's already stupid that they let them to stay there, instead that in a modern psychiatric ward. ELSEWHERE.

Laurentio

Closet_Skeleton
2008-06-07, 03:58 PM
Don't be stupid, explosions don't kill supervillains, they create them.

Dryken
2008-06-07, 10:23 PM
Don't be stupid, explosions don't kill supervillains, they create them.

HA! So very true!

Tirian
2008-06-07, 10:50 PM
I think that a part of living in the DCU would be a resignation to the fact that incarceration in general is a pipe dream. Arkham isn't any more escape-prone than Blackgate Prison, the STAR Labs detention facilities, or even the Phantom Zone or getting time-warped to the heat death of the universe. Or killing them, if you get right down to it. We would be as sanguine to the notion of supervillains reappearing with amped-up powers every three years as we are in our world to flu outbreaks or the cicada cycle.

Jayngfet
2008-06-08, 02:12 AM
Don't be stupid, explosions don't kill supervillains, they create them.

Then we could kill the-

Damn.

We could gas the-

Damn.

We could try to break them psycho-

Damn.

We might be able to launch them into spa-

Damn.

We could make fun of their-

Damn. (http://www.headinjurytheater.com/article59.htm)

Dave Rapp
2008-06-08, 02:21 AM
I'm reminded of another situation where a building that housed a bunch of crazies was blown up. There were no survivors, except one. Booooooyy, was he pissed.

http://i28.tinypic.com/2dmd2tv.jpg

Mewtarthio
2008-06-08, 02:40 AM
The trouble is that Arkham is not the true source of Gotham's problems. Batman is. So long as he lives, villains will always pop up to combat him. The obvious solution, then, is to simply kill Batman, but everyone knows that's impossible. Therefore, the only remaining way to fix Gotham's criminal element is to annihilate it as suddenly and violently as possible. I'm talking about Gotham, not the criminal element.

I recommend staging a fake alien invasion and leveraging the tragedy to avert a nuclear war. That seems to be a good way to get out of those pesky reprecussions. Not that you'd need to worry about them, anyway: Wiping out Gotham will kill some good people, true, but the net effect should be enough aggregate good to instantly transform you into a saint, at which point you can deal with any superheroes who attack you by turning all the water in their bodies into wine or something like that.

kpenguin
2008-06-09, 02:52 AM
I recommend staging a fake alien invasion and leveraging the tragedy to avert a nuclear war. That seems to be a good way to get out of those pesky reprecussions. Not that you'd need to worry about them, anyway: Wiping out Gotham will kill some good people, true, but the net effect should be enough aggregate good to instantly transform you into a saint, at which point you can deal with any superheroes who attack you by turning all the water in their bodies into wine or something like that.

So, you become a hybrid between Ozymandias and Jesus?

Awesome:smallcool:

Laurentio
2008-06-09, 06:00 AM
Suggestion.
Take all Arkham inmates, one at the time. Tell them that Batman is a senile clown, and that they look very stupid having a fight with him. Show them a photo of some cool heroes, like Wolverine, Punisher, or Venom. Tell them some story on how this characters called them wussy, and will kill them if they just show up in their playground. Then ask them please to never meet them, call for a five, and leave the room with an open window and a train ticket for New York City on you desk. Take your time.

They will go. One at a time. Now, think of Punisher, Wolverine or Venom assaulted by a Batman's weirdos. Enjoy the grinding.

Sorry for using Marvel's heroes for the suggestion, but I'm quite off on DC killing vigilantes doing it for free. I'm sure you can name some for me.

Laurentio

Serpentine
2008-06-09, 07:47 AM
Um... No. Cuz of, you know, morality. And not just because killing people, individually or en masse, should be an absolutely last resort.
I haven't read any of the comics, so I'm pretty much running on popular culture and information cast off by comic-reading friends, but so far as I can gather, Arkham Asylum is, you know, a mental asylum, right? As in, for mad people? If these villians weren't considered insane, they wouldn't be sent there, they would be sent to an ordinary prison. Because a madman isn't considered in control of nor responsible for their actions - because they're insane, and thus not in control of themselves. Even if that weren't the case, I haven't seen anything to suggest that Gotham is ever likely to instate the death penalty, even if they really really deserve it.
And that's just the really nasty ones. What about all the ordinary people? All those mentally unstable people whose families just couldn't cope with them? All those people put in there because they're at risk of hurting themselves? Who have nowhere else to go? If you destroy Arkham and its inmates, you would be killing potentially hundreds of innocent people. Unless you think we should start offing Alzheimer's and schizophrenics, you shouldn't be casting your bloodthirsty eye over this place. It obviously has some serious issues - go over the blueprints and close all those damnable escape routes, upgrade the security systems, fire the staff (or better yet, prosecute them) and install a strict policy of screening new staff for sadistic tendencies, etc. - but if you get rid of it completely, what do you have then? Increased homeless rates as all the people, including many potentially dangerous ones, who would normally be committed end up on the streets because they have nowhere to go. Psychiatric wards incidental to normal hospitals woefully inadequate for normal psychiatric patients, much less with anything like the security, staff and facilities to deal with all the dangerously criminally insane villian-types that you know will quickly turn up and be deemed too mentally unfit for prison.
Finally, where will Batman go if he ever needs a Hannibal Lecter? :smallconfused:

Laurentio
2008-06-09, 08:44 AM
I haven't read any of the comics, so I'm pretty much running on popular culture and information cast off by comic-reading friends, but so far as I can gather, Arkham Asylum is, you know, a mental asylum, right? As in, for mad people? If these villians weren't considered insane, they wouldn't be sent there, they would be sent to an ordinary prison. Because a madman isn't considered in control of nor responsible for their actions - because they're insane, and thus not in control of themselves. Even if that weren't the case, I haven't seen anything to suggest that Gotham is ever likely to instate the death penalty, even if they really really deserve it.
Uhm... deep. But out of jokes, let me open this can. They are mental, and deadly. Very deadly, if you take some like the Joker, that killed probably more that a thousand innocents during his career. Willing.
Now, is he responsible of his crimes? If yes, he should be confided and educated until he became a normal person (let's skip the "punishment" part. I don't believe in punishment myself, honestly).
Can you educate the Joker? No. Really, no way. Aside the fact that he is a fictional character and that it's pictured a way that prevent him to just "became a normal citizen", he has a story of not wanting and not caring to stop killing. For the sake of it.
So, if he is responsible of his crimes, and can't be stopped, you can do just two things: lifetime confinement, or death. I don't feel the first to be the most kind (I'd prefer death to a life of captivity), and there is the eventuality of him escaping. In DC universe, "the eventuality of him escaping" is spelled "monthly".

And what if the Joker is just plain mad? Ok, it's not his fault. He can't fight it, so you can't blame him. But still, innocents urge you to confine him forever. And as he is just insane, it would be worst that just a life-long prison: he, technically, wouldn't deserve it.
Put him in liberty? Unfeasible. People would die. Cure him? Not working. Never worked, actually (in DC comics setting). So, again, it's permanent confinement (with frequent jailbreaking and deaths) or electric chair.

Now, one step further. I'm against the death sentence, because it's too hard, for a judgment system, to accurately determinate if a person is really impossible to educate or cure, so that he has a chance to have a normal life. But this thread question is different, and it's about a single person.
That is just you (meaning anyone of us) to decide if you would kill a bunch of crazy, uncurable killers, knowing that each one could jailbreak in a matter of days.
It's like asking yourself "I'd kill a person to prevent a typhoon to crash on a town, killing people by dozens"?

It help that it's a comic. The lack of real-life super-beings means that confinement, education and psychiatric science are more trustworthy.

Laurentio

GoC
2008-06-10, 11:07 PM
Um... No. Cuz of, you know, morality. And not just because killing people, individually or en masse, should be an absolutely last resort.
I haven't read any of the comics, so I'm pretty much running on popular culture and information cast off by comic-reading friends, but so far as I can gather, Arkham Asylum is, you know, a mental asylum, right? As in, for mad people? If these villians weren't considered insane, they wouldn't be sent there, they would be sent to an ordinary prison. Because a madman isn't considered in control of nor responsible for their actions - because they're insane, and thus not in control of themselves. Even if that weren't the case, I haven't seen anything to suggest that Gotham is ever likely to instate the death penalty, even if they really really deserve it.
And that's just the really nasty ones. What about all the ordinary people? All those mentally unstable people whose families just couldn't cope with them? All those people put in there because they're at risk of hurting themselves? Who have nowhere else to go? If you destroy Arkham and its inmates, you would be killing potentially hundreds of innocent people. Unless you think we should start offing Alzheimer's and schizophrenics, you shouldn't be casting your bloodthirsty eye over this place. It obviously has some serious issues - go over the blueprints and close all those damnable escape routes, upgrade the security systems, fire the staff (or better yet, prosecute them) and install a strict policy of screening new staff for sadistic tendencies, etc. - but if you get rid of it completely, what do you have then? Increased homeless rates as all the people, including many potentially dangerous ones, who would normally be committed end up on the streets because they have nowhere to go. Psychiatric wards incidental to normal hospitals woefully inadequate for normal psychiatric patients, much less with anything like the security, staff and facilities to deal with all the dangerously criminally insane villian-types that you know will quickly turn up and be deemed too mentally unfit for prison.
Finally, where will Batman go if he ever needs a Hannibal Lecter? :smallconfused:
Well let's see...
It's called Arkham Ayslum for the criminally insane.
Which is better: Killing a small number of insane and dangerous people or letting thousands of innocents get killed by the Joker?
It's that simple.

Mewtarthio
2008-06-11, 01:38 AM
Well let's see...
It's called Arkham Ayslum for the criminally insane.
Which is better: Killing a small number of insane and dangerous people or letting thousands of innocents get killed by the Joker?
It's that simple.

Why is it that utilitarians always assume that everyone else is a utilitarian? I could just as easily phrase that in a thousand different ways, each of which is only valid to someone who agrees with a particular philosophy:

Which is better: Becoming a mass murderer yourself, or continuing to live in a world that inevitably produces more murderers?

Which is better: Destroying an institution erected and mantained with taxpayer money because it doesn't seem to be working, or applying political pressure to fix it?

Which is better: Slaughtering the strongest and smartest members of our society, or allowing them to cull the weak and slow-moving as nature intended?

Laurentio
2008-06-11, 02:26 AM
Why is it that utilitarians always assume that everyone else is a utilitarian?
Because utilitarianism allows you to kill people. And I'd like to kill some weirdo DC mental mass-killer. But I can't. I'm too scared of a sequel villain.

Laurentio

Isolder74
2008-06-11, 11:36 AM
I'm not actually sure that you can even actually kill the Joker. Or Poison Ivy, or Mr Freeze(the warm air might) or.....

That crazy one man killing machine takes insane amounts of punishment. Blowing up Arkham might only result in a large number of Batman's crazies getting set loose all at once and having a field day. All thanks to you as well.

The plan might not only result in a lot of mass murders but also would be much more then perhaps the entire Justice League could even deal with.

Laurentio
2008-06-11, 12:38 PM
I'm not actually sure that you can even actually kill the Joker. Or Poison Ivy, or Mr Freeze(the warm air might) or.....

That crazy one man killing machine takes insane amounts of punishment. Blowing up Arkham might only result in a large number of Batman's crazies getting set loose all at once and having a field day. All thanks to you as well.

The plan might not only result in a lot of mass murders but also would be much more then perhaps the entire Justice League could even deal with.
Or just Batman alone. For the second time.

But you are right. You can't just kill a Bat-weirdo. You have to dissolve them into thin powder, and then disperse over not less than three continents. And still, Second-coming Joker "sequel" Junior II (the Revenge) will kick in.
Now, just to get back to the topic, yes. For the following reasons:
1) they are inhumane mass killers, impossible to heal or confine;
2) they WANT to die, otherwise would have resorted to emigrate in some place with less superheroes and, more important, less inhumane mass killers (1);
3) because, let's face it, half of they suck. Hard.

Laurentio

(1) Did anyone noticed that no matter how many times the Joker release a gas that kills half on Gotham's citizen, it never kills any of the other villains? And only a very little number of them are immune to gas, rabid bats, poisoned cookies, or heat-aimed nerf arrows (that kill).
I means, could it be that EVERYTIME, the Penguin is on the other side of the city?

Serpentine
2008-06-11, 12:52 PM
Well let's see...
It's called Arkham Ayslum for the criminally insane.Yeah, and? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminally_insane) They're still insane, still judged incapable of controlling their own actions. Still, for all intents and purposes, innocent. If you want to argue that you're merely putting them out of their misery, then you might have an argument, but then you're getting into a discussion on euthenasia and I had enough of that in high school, and you'd still be better off, if you're doing it for "merciful" reasons, simply taking steps to improve their circumstances.

krossbow
2008-06-11, 01:46 PM
Lets examine this from a personal rights perspective then.


A sane, law abiding citizen is within his rights to take actions deemed reasonable to defend himself in a situation in which his life is in danger.

Those kept in arkham have been able to escape regularly, and even in a situation in which they will not escape, they will inevitably be RELEASED by someone attempting to use them as either mercenaries or a distraction (example: Bane, injustice league, ect.)

Via this, one could argue that, being a citizen of gotham, you view their continued existence as not just a CHANCE that your life is in immidiate danger, but a certainty that your life is in immidiate danger.




By this reasoning, one could Very logically argue, with large amounts of historical evidence in gotham, that by blowing up arkham and its inhabitants, you are merely attempting to preserve your own life and therefore arguably in the right.

Serpentine
2008-06-11, 01:51 PM
SUVs being driven in cities are extremely dangerous and are a potential hazard to me. Does that give me the right to go pour bleach into their tanks?
If so, awesome.
>fetches bleach<

One's human rights never impinge on those of others. By blowing up a building full of (legally and psychologically, at least) innocent people, you are violating their human rights in a massive way. Your human rights !> their human rights.

sealemon
2008-06-11, 04:07 PM
Considering the bounties that are undoubtadly on most of these physco's heads, I'm surprised Hitman hasn't already blown the palce sky high. Oh, wait...they got Plot Armor. That's why.

But to answer the question, without a doubt.

krossbow
2008-06-11, 05:27 PM
SUVs being driven in cities are extremely dangerous and are a potential hazard to me. Does that give me the right to go pour bleach into their tanks?
If so, awesome.
>fetches bleach<

One's human rights never impinge on those of others. By blowing up a building full of (legally and psychologically, at least) innocent people, you are violating their human rights in a massive way. Your human rights !> their human rights.




the difference is INTENT. Do those SUV drivers intend and want to kill you? Further more, is the entire point of their existence to kill you?




Lunatics like the joker exist for one reason, and one reason only: To kill. When the joker thought he was going to die due to cancer, his thought on how to make himself remembered was, suprise, to kill lots, and lots of people. And furthermore, thats all he wants to do is kill more people.

He eats, sleeps, and kills people. Thats his life. He has no other purpose, and never will. The SUV drivers however have other things to do, and, if left alone, will not attempt to kill you and everyone you care about.


There is a rather LARGE difference.


Furthermore, the joker has the aid, and has aided, the most powerful person (legally and politically speaking) in the DC universe, Lex Luther. Because of this, do you really think that its wise to just trust that you can keep joker, or any of the inmates in there, EVER?

The mere existence of this building presents a clear and present danger to not only those in gotham, but the world.

comicshorse
2008-06-11, 06:10 PM
Thre's a short story where a Psychiatrist at Arkham decides as the Joker is obviously incurably insane to simply have him lobotimized. While it obviously doesn't turn out well it a;ways seemed a decent idea to me.

krossbow
2008-06-11, 09:22 PM
Thre's a short story where a Psychiatrist at Arkham decides as the Joker is obviously incurably insane to simply have him lobotimized. While it obviously doesn't turn out well it a;ways seemed a decent idea to me.



While taking place outside of the comic spectrum and featuring heavily neutered characters, the episode of justice league in which superman had Lobotomized the patients at arkham in a parallel universe seemed to have worked out nicely. Disregarding the fascist society outside the walls, the patients at arkham were removed from being a threat, and in fact ran the facility themselves, undoubtedly saving taxpayers thousands if not millions.

Xuincherguixe
2008-06-12, 06:44 PM
Buy out Arkham. Let's face it, it's probably for sale to someone if they had enough money for it.

Replace the staff with some competent types.


For the extremely dangerous ones, (Batman's rogue gallery) hook them up to highly realistic computer simulations so that they won't want to leave. Or, routinely allow them to think they've escaped in the simulations.

Hey, I'm sure that technology exists in the DC universe.

Probably amongst the least atrocious of strategies.


Alternatively, tell them that if they get Batman to laugh, they'll be pardoned of their crimes. Ideally, they would then spend all their time on an impossible task, but most of them will go back to their crime after trying at it for awhile, but not necessarily giving up. So at least it would help waste their resources ^_^

sun_tzu
2008-07-08, 11:24 AM
I wouldn't do it.
Mind you, if I had a reliable way of killing the Joker, I'd go for it. The world shouldn't have to deal with his recurring mass-murders.
But blowing up Arkham? Plenty of inmates who don't deserve such a gruesome fate, not to mention the personnel!

TreesOfDeath
2008-08-01, 09:21 AM
Id escort the normal pirsoners and non corrupt staff to a diffent mental world, then bomb the prison repatively. I'd do it 10 times to make sur enothing could survive, then run over the area with a bulldozer and search the remains (which I would then destroy).
Batman acts the way he does because StatusQuoISGod.

Dear god, I hate that trope

D_Lord
2008-08-16, 03:38 PM
I would most likely be in Arkham. So I would instead hide in there after letting everyone else out. Bats would be too busy to deal with me, and then after 2 hours, leave and head back to the base for the world dominion plans to start up again. And upgrade the defenses so Bat can't get back in.

Athaniar
2008-08-16, 05:11 PM
Seeing as I will never ever even contemplate killing (I have trouble killing bugs, even), I wouldn't do it. Locking them in a secure demiplane or something, yes, but no killing.

Aquillion
2008-08-16, 06:11 PM
The thing is, blowing up Arkham would just be setting yourself up as the new Batman villain. You'd probably get a disfiguring scar of some sort in the explosion, then Batman would hunt you down while you taunt him about the ineffectiveness of his methods and he tells you that it's what separates him from lowlife thugs like you. You'd end up getting defeated, Batman would probably save your life at the end after you fall off a building or into fire or something, and then you'd be the first prisoner locked in the new Arkham.

Shortly after this the entire explosion would be retconned so that every named villains survived, except maybe one or two really minor guys who don't come back until much later.

Athaniar
2008-08-17, 11:26 AM
The thing is, blowing up Arkham would just be setting yourself up as the new Batman villain. You'd probably get a disfiguring scar of some sort in the explosion, then Batman would hunt you down while you taunt him about the ineffectiveness of his methods and he tells you that it's what separates him from lowlife thugs like you. You'd end up getting defeated, Batman would probably save your life at the end after you fall off a building or into fire or something, and then you'd be the first prisoner locked in the new Arkham.

Shortly after this the entire explosion would be retconned so that every named villains survived, except maybe one or two really minor guys who don't come back until much later.

Quoted for Truth. Absolute Truth.