Batman isn’t a “good person”. His story is one long redemption arc, that likely only ends with his death.
Yeah, Harley has her faults. Redemption need not involve “making amends to those you have wronged.” It can, but it is not a requirement. She did her time, as was required for the crimes she was convicted of. That’s more than some people in the DCU have ever done.
Batman has committed the crime of breaking and entering more than most people have driven over the speed limit or jaywalked. In order to redeem himself, does he need to go apologize to every person he ever dangled out over a roof top for information?
And let’s not forget that Robin is just as much a vigilante in the DCAU as Batman is.
I mean, if you want to get philosophical and hash out an exact definition we can, but I think it’s safe to say that the person who goes around rampantly killing people when it suits her and using her reputation to torture and terrorize people for her own amusement is not a good person, and a person who uses his resources and status to protect vulnerable people is.
Are you referencing a specific Batman writer by looking at Batman’s story as one long redemption arc? What is he attempting to redeem himself of?
Yes, it does actually. Redemption without reparation is meaningless. Claiming that you feel bad about something you did and then doing absolutely nothing to fix the bad thing you did, especially if it has long-term ongoing effects means: You don’t actually feel bad. “Doing Time” for your crime doesn’t mean anything in terms of redemption. All it means is that you were jailed. It has absolutely nothing to do with your state of mind or attitude to your past acts. And can you please show me some comic, ANY comic, where Harley Quinn is actually jailed for a full sentence? Because as far as I know, that has not happened. Ever.
Batman has committed breaking and entering, yes, and yes, Batman’s crusade has hurt people. Multiple stories address this and the reparations Batman pays to people he has hurt, even when he doesn’t have to. But he explictly targets people who are actively seeking to hurt others. This is blatant false equivalency, because you cannot honestly say that the heinous things the Joker and Harley Quinn to to people - including torturing a child until he goes insane- is the same as harrassing someone to find the location of a supervillains who is pushing drugs on the streets/has a bomb planted in Gotham Main Square.
Batman acts with the aim to save lives even if his methods may not be completely ethical, but that will always be more ethical than the likes of Joker and Harley, who are literally killing and torturing people.
Again, false equivalency. Nothing Robin has ever done, ever, let alone in the DCAU, is as bad as torturing a child until he goes insane and trying to brainwash him into murdering his loved ones. End of story.
So the rule of law doesn’t apply equally to all people. An interesting philosophy.
As a character and that he can not prevent his parents being killed. That is the redemption arc of Batman as a character.
So let’s say person X kills someone. It is impossible to provide them with reparations, because they are dead. Any family they had died while person X was in prison doing time for their crime. It is also impossible to make even secondary reparations.
Harley has made parole on multiple occasions. Parole is a valid means of getting out of prison and upheld by the rule of law.
They are both committing crimes. Joker and Harley have committed crimes. So has Batman. Both are engaging in acts of violence. Batman cannot prove that a known “snitch” has committed a crime, yet threatened them with the probability of severe injury and possibly death. That is torture.
Robin is working as a vigilante. Robin and more specifically Batman is responsible for a child being in a situation where that child is taking the actions of an adult and therefore has earned, by their behavior, to be treated as such. It is not as if Robin or Batman is not aware of that fact.
What a very machiavellian philosophy. The ends justify the means if you subjectively a particular end, even though it is torture, is justified. Again, in this view, the rule of law is subjective.
You are entitled to your opinion. However, that rationale is not applying the rule of law equally. If that is a world view you support, I can respect that opinion as an opinion, but I disagree as an absolute. In my opinion, equality under the law is paramount to a civilized society. If equality under the law does not exist, it is merely the tyranny of the majority attempting to impose their particular moral views across a population.
So your argument and presupposition that torturing a child, who is functioning as an adult is worse than torturing an adult. I do not agree. Robin is and should be measured by his actions, not his age. The fact that he is under 18 is irrelevant.