I’m all for #2. To me, post-Crisis Batman is in arrested development, as far as his career is concerned. When he starts off, he should be a vigilante with improper methods, but after the big crime families are taken out and Gordon becomes commissioner, Batman really should rein it in and start acting like a superhero instead of a criminal.
If the heroes killed, these stories would be so dull. They could all easily murder their nemeses, but then there would be no moral dilemma, no development earned from it, no reward to the reader in watching the hero struggle. Yes, it would make a hero’s job so much easier, but you don’t read fiction because it’s easy for the characters, do you? That makes any genre boring, no matter what it is.
I think that the no-kill rule serves heroes well. It’s an issue we have seen many a hero have to deal with and struggle with, especially when they are at a low point.
The no kill rule isn’t for heroes at all it’s for the characters in Batman’s situation he doesn’t what to kill because he finds it morally wrong in Superman’s case he represents hope so no killing for him the flash doesn’t kill as well because of his origin and his job as a cop but besides most of the batfamily and Superman related characters many of the superheroes don’t care if they kill but it’s usually a final option
The Golden Age Flash wasn’t a cop. He was a research scientist. So the no-kill rule is just that, a rule Jay enforces on himself because he believes it to be correct.