Who's crazier--Batman or the Joker?

[Skald the Rhymer]

The dearth of stupid polls on the front page of CS saddens me. I blame myself but shall punish others.

For purposes of this poll, Batman is the comics' Bruce Wayne as written since, oh, 2000. The Joker is the Joker from the same period.

[RikWriter]

I'd say they are equally nuts, in different ways. And I wouldn't even say Bats' insanity is less harmful.

[Loopus]

Batman, if he's prepared?

[Skald the Rhymer]

I'd say they are equally nuts, in different ways. And I wouldn't even say Bats' insanity is less harmful.

Given how I voted, I obviously agree with your second sentence.

[pravnik]

Joker, hands down. Deep down, I think Bruce's superficially looney decision to dress like a bat and fight crime comes from a genuinely rational and altrusitic desire to prevent anyone else from having to go through the tragedy that he did. The Joker wants to inflict chaos and ugliness on all humanity for reasons only known to him. Bruce is a cop, the Joker is a terrorist.

[RickJay]

My understanding of Batman is largely based on the movies, in which Batman really isn't nuts at all.

The Joker, in the movie, was not legally insane but he was certainly a psychopath.

[Skald the Rhymer]

My understanding of Batman is largely based on the movies, in which Batman really isn't nuts at all.

The Joker, in the movie, was not legally insane but he was certainly a psychopath.

That's why I specified the comics, though I wish you had been more clear which movies you refer to--the Burton/Schumacher quartet, or the Nolan duet. Nolan's Bruce Wayne is clearly not crazy, or even immoral; he's doing what he does in a calculated way for calculated reasons, and I believe him when he says he anticipates eventually going to jail for it.

The Schumacher Batman was a clown, so I'll ignore him.

As for Burton's...I'm sorry, but that boy's not right.

Joker, hands down. Deep down, I think Bruce's superficially looney decision to dress like a bat and fight crime comes from a genuinely rational and altrusitic desire to prevent anyone else from having to go through the tragedy that he did. The Joker wants to inflict chaos and ugliness on all humanity for reasons only known to him. Bruce is a cop, the Joker is a terrorist.

In the current DC continuity, just putting the costume on isn't crazy. Neither Wayne nor Kent invented the idea (which I think is a shame in the latter case); there was a long-standing tradition before even their parents are born. But the sum total of Batman's methodology is crazy in a way that, say, Supes, Wonder Woman, & the various Flashes are not. (Except, of course, for the fact that they tolerate him.)

[RikWriter]

But the sum total of Batman's methodology is crazy in a way that, say, Supes, Wonder Woman, & the various Flashes are not. (Except, of course, for the fact that they tolerate him.)

I dunno, I think Superman is a bit neurotic in the way that only a godlike being can be.

[RealityChuck]

The question was answered definitely in The Killing Joke.

[Sage Rat]

I'd say that Batman is no more nuts than pretty much anyone who's a member of Green Peace--which is probably half of this board. If you're no more insane than significant portions of the population, you're just an asshole, not a nutter.

I would have chosen option #5 (from the top) for technical accuracy, but I couldn't pass up choosing #7. :D You can optionally subtract one and move it into #5 if you want a correct survey answer.

[vdgg81]

In the current DC continuity, just putting the costume on isn't crazy. Neither Wayne nor Kent invented the idea (which I think is a shame in the latter case); there was a long-standing tradition before even their parents are born. But the sum total of Batman's methodology is crazy in a way that, say, Supes, Wonder Woman, & the various Flashes are not. (Except, of course, for the fact that they tolerate him.)

I disagree. Clearly (to me at least) the crazy part is the putting on the costume and setting out to fight crime in the first place. Seeing as in Batman's world that almost doesn't count as an eccentricity even, then all the rest is perfectly reasonable/rational. If you are going to do it, then Batman's way is the best one I can think of. Sure, the guy has some deep emotional issues, but they aren't really all that unusual and (when you discount the superhero stuff, which you must) don't even come close to making the man crazy.

[AClockworkMelon]

To be honest I haven't read many DC comics. My experience comes from the few I've read (there's one that takes place on Halloween that has Batman and the Joker in it, then there's one where Joker and Batman are both searching for a killer, Batman to stop him, the Joker because he doesn't like competition and I've leafed through the series where Gotham is abandoned by the US government- can't remember what ANY of them were called) and from the movies I've seen (Batman Begins, Dark Knight, Batman Returns and Batman and Robin) as well as long, long talks I've had from friends.

I'm not entirely sure if Joker is nuts. Dressing up like a clown and holding a city hostage doesn't make you nuts. For a guy who's supposedly crazy, he has a really good grasp on reality, given his ability to predict how all the variables in his schemes will behave. I don't think Batman's nuts, either, but I think it's irresponsible of him to refuse to kill the Joker given that the Joker, over and over and over, breaks out of the Asylum (sometimes killing dozens in the process) and goes out on killing sprees. If he could be locked up securely I would agree that not killing him is the moral thing to do- but by refusing to kill him Batman is basically allowing the Joker to murder again.

/rant

[vdgg81]

... I don't think Batman's nuts, either, but I think it's irresponsible of him to refuse to kill the Joker given that the Joker, over and over and over, breaks out of the Asylum (sometimes killing dozens in the process) and goes out on killing sprees. If he could be locked up securely I would agree that not killing him is the moral thing to do- but by refusing to kill him Batman is basically allowing the Joker to murder again.
/rant

People write this all the time here and I just don't get it. Even setting aside Batman's moral code, surely the decision that a person is too dangerous for society at large and must be killed doesn't belong to any single man, much less one that's so personally involved in the issue, but instead must be arrived at by due process. It doesn't matter what the Joker has done I just can't see how Batman killing him in anything that's not self-defense can be justified (though it could be excused). It would be wrong for a cop to kill the Joker once he's been contained, so how can it be okay for Batman, who's not even been appointed by society for his job to do so? If the Joker must die then he should be sentenced to death, not executed by a vigilante.

[Satchmo]

The question was answered definitely in The Killing Joke.

And once again Chuck gets it in one.
Not sure what year "The Killing Joke" was done, but I'm too lazy to go look it up. Anyone that hasn't read that, I can highly recommend it. Neither of them will ever quit doing what they do. Neither would be who they are without the other. They are the two sides of the same coin.

"Oh no! You'll turn the light off when I'm only half way!"
:D:D:D:D

Also highly recommended, "Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader".

[AClockworkMelon]

People write this all the time here and I just don't get it. Even setting aside Batman's moral code, surely the decision that a person is too dangerous for society at large and must be killed doesn't belong to any single man, much less one that's so personally involved in the issue, but instead must be arrived at by due process. It doesn't matter what the Joker has done I just can't see how Batman killing him in anything that's not self-defense can be justified (though it could be excused). It would be wrong for a cop to kill the Joker once he's been contained, so how can it be okay for Batman, who's not even been appointed by society for his job to do so? If the Joker must die then he should be sentenced to death, not executed by a vigilante.Surely the Joker's incarceration should be left to the authorities and not to some vigilante! What, they can't do the job so Batman has to? The same logic applies to killing the Joker.

[vdgg81]

Surely the Joker's incarceration should be left to the authorities and not to some vigilante! What, they can't do the job so Batman has to? The same logic applies to killing the Joker.

The police can arrest the Joker (or ask for Batman's help to do so) but can't judge him then pass sentence and execute it. It's not even as if it's impossible to hold the man. He remains imprisoned for months at a time, he's been tried several times and once was even sentenced to death (the sentence was annulled when it came to light that the Joker was innocent of that particular crime). I'll agree with you that having a vigilante helping with the policing is already troublesome from several perspectives (though people in the DC universe don't really seem to mind most of the time); but what the vigilantes do is police work. They investigate crime and arrest people, which, for all I know, could even be legal. Where I live I can detain someone until the authorities arrive if I've seen this person commit a crime. They don't act on behalf of the judicial system all by themselves. If it's Batman's duty to kill the Joker why can't the same be said of any cop in Gotham? Or of any Arkham orderly or doctor?

[AClockworkMelon]

The police can arrest the Joker (or ask for Batman's help to do so) but can't judge him then pass sentence and execute it. It's not even as if it's impossible to hold the man. He remains imprisoned for months at a time, he's been tried several times and once was even sentenced to death (the sentence was annulled when it came to light that the Joker was innocent of that particular crime). I'll agree with you that having a vigilante helping with the policing is already troublesome from several perspectives (though people in the DC universe don't really seem to mind most of the time); but what the vigilantes do is police work. They investigate crime and arrest people, which, for all I know, could even be legal. Where I live I can detain someone until the authorities arrive if I've seen this person commit a crime. They don't act on behalf of the judicial system all by themselves. If it's Batman's duty to kill the Joker why can't the same be said of any cop in Gotham? Or of any Arkham orderly or doctor?He fulfills the role of a police officer? Then he should fulfill the role of an executioner. Batman doesn't just detain someone until the authorities arrive, he takes the law into his own hands. He just decides to stop one arbitrary step short of saving the lives of potentially hundreds of Gotham citizens.

[vdgg81]

He fulfills the role of a police officer? Then he should fulfill the role of an executioner. Batman doesn't just detain someone until the authorities arrive, he takes the law into his own hands. He just decides to stop one arbitrary step short of saving the lives of potentially hundreds of Gotham citizens.
I think there's a big difference involved between what Batman does and what you propose he should do, you don't. The way I see it Batman doesn't pass judgment, he just sees to it that the criminals are available for the judging.

Let's just agree to disagree on this.

[Kamino Neko]

Joker. The Bat is obsessive, with a narcissistic streak, and occasionally displays a lack of empathy.

Joker is obsessive, narcissistic, completely lacking in empathy, occasionally delusional, and actively homicidal.

[Ranchoth]

Animal control should be in the hands of the proper authorities, too, but wringing your hands while a rabid dog is running loose when you—and possibly only you—have the means to stop it doesn't register as "moral" in my book.

Hell, if he's so against killing, why doesn't Batman take responsibility for incarcerating the Joker himself? He's surely capable of figuring out a way to keep the Joker contained—and clearly he's not going to be cheating him out of the desperately needed psychiatric help he'd get at Arkham, which is either nonexistant, or completely ineffective. Maybe he could even do it legally—get Wayne Enterprises to branch out into private prison/mental hospital contracting, and wrangling his way into getting jurisdiction for the "insane" supercriminals in the Gotham area. Surely he could afford it—and he'd probably make up a lot of the costs from what he WOULDN'T have to spend tracking down and fighting his villains in the first place, with the benefit that they'd murder fewer people.

[AClockworkMelon]

Animal control should be in the hands of the proper authorities, too, but wringing your hands while a rabid dog is running loose when you—and possibly only you—have the means to stop it doesn't register as "moral" in my book.

Hell, if he's so against killing, why doesn't Batman take responsibility for incarcerating the Joker himself? He's surely capable of figuring out a way to keep the Joker contained—and clearly he's not going to be cheating him out of the desperately needed psychiatric help he'd get at Arkham, which is either nonexistant, or completely ineffective. Maybe he could even do it legally—get Wayne Enterprises to branch out into private prison/mental hospital contracting, and wrangling his way into getting jurisdiction for the "insane" supercriminals in the Gotham area. Surely he could afford it—and he'd probably make up a lot of the costs from what he WOULDN'T have to spend tracking down and fighting his villains in the first place, with the benefit that they'd murder fewer people.This, this, this. He can basically afford to do anything he wants. If he cares so much, he can hold the Joker himself.

[RikWriter]

People write this all the time here and I just don't get it. Even setting aside Batman's moral code, surely the decision that a person is too dangerous for society at large and must be killed doesn't belong to any single man, much less one that's so personally involved in the issue, but instead must be arrived at by due process. It doesn't matter what the Joker has done I just can't see how Batman killing him in anything that's not self-defense can be justified (though it could be excused). It would be wrong for a cop to kill the Joker once he's been contained, so how can it be okay for Batman, who's not even been appointed by society for his job to do so? If the Joker must die then he should be sentenced to death, not executed by a vigilante.

But the fact is, in the Batman universe, the state either can't or won't kill the Joker. I lean towards "can't."

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

People write this all the time here and I just don't get it. Even setting aside Batman's moral code, surely the decision that a person is too dangerous for society at large and must be killed doesn't belong to any single man, much less one that's so personally involved in the issue, but instead must be arrived at by due process.

Slight hijack, but Captain America once explicitly made that point -- upon killing a crook, because he's Captain Freakin' America and so will of course promptly turn himself in to face a trial by jury.

[Captain Amazing]

Animal control should be in the hands of the proper authorities, too, but wringing your hands while a rabid dog is running loose when you—and possibly only you—have the means to stop it doesn't register as "moral" in my book.

A dog's not a person. A dog's not endowed with constitutional rights, a dog isn't entitled to the protection of the law, and, as a society, we've never experienced the horrors that come from extrajudicial killing of dogs.

[RikWriter]

A dog's not a person. A dog's not endowed with constitutional rights, a dog isn't entitled to the protection of the law, and, as a society, we've never experienced the horrors that come from extrajudicial killing of dogs.

Well, Michael Vick maybe...

[Scumpup]

The Joker is not some ordinary, grubby little murderer. Hell, he isn't even a serial killer. He's a mass murdering monster who has the blood of, I expect, hundreds (or even thousands) on his hands. Batsy refusing to off him is exactly like refusing to zorch Josef Mengele, while he was experimenting, because it would be "wrong."

[RikWriter]

The Joker is not some ordinary, grubby little murderer. Hell, he isn't even a serial killer. He's a mass murdering monster who has the blood of, I expect, hundreds (or even thousands) on his hands. Batsy refusing to off him is exactly like refusing to zorch Josef Mengele, while he was experimenting, because it would be "wrong."

Yep. Of course, IRL, someone that evil would either be 1)hiding in a foreign country and labelled a terrorist or b)on death row.
The writers of the Batman comic books have twisted willing suspension of disbelief well past the breaking point with the Joker.

[Mr. Excellent]

Joker. The Bat is obsessive, with a narcissistic streak, and occasionally displays a lack of empathy.

Joker is obsessive, narcissistic, completely lacking in empathy, occasionally delusional, and actively homicidal.

Nitpick: The Joker from "The Dark Knight" was keenly empathetic. He understands the thoughts and feelings of his underlings, Batman, Harvey Dent et al unerringly. He simply uses his empathy for evil.

[Mr. Excellent]

The Joker is not some ordinary, grubby little murderer. Hell, he isn't even a serial killer. He's a mass murdering monster who has the blood of, I expect, hundreds (or even thousands) on his hands. Batsy refusing to off him is exactly like refusing to zorch Josef Mengele, while he was experimenting, because it would be "wrong."

Part of the problem is that the Joker is, when all is said and done, just a man. Men can be jailed. Now, *we* know that every time the Joker is incarcerated, he will escape at the time and place of his choosing. But Bats *doesn't* know that. He knows that the Joker has escaped before - but one assumes that, at every re-incarcertation, Arkham Asylam says (and probably quite persuasively) that they have implemented reforms/hired new staff/etc to ensure the Joker does not again escape.

So, once the Joker is incarcerated, the moral analysis is just like that involved in the conventional death penalty - do we kill someone who's already been effectively prevented from further offending? Bats says no - and so do I, for that matter.

[Ranchoth]

A dog's not a person. A dog's not endowed with constitutional rights, a dog isn't entitled to the protection of the law, and, as a society, we've never experienced the horrors that come from extrajudicial killing of dogs.

Most people with constitutional rights don't run around nerve gassing people for their own amusement; most people can actually be at least contained by a prison.

Frankly, the judicial system in this case is a worse failure than if it justified, required, and obligated Batman to return escaped slaves to their masters; or round up racial undesirables for internment so they wouldn't pollute any bloodlines. At least those would technically be [/i]functioning[/i] laws.

As it is, allowing the Joker to live turns the law into a suicide pact for it's own sake. As bad as if it ordered his victims to be arbitrarily killed.

[RikWriter]

Part of the problem is that the Joker is, when all is said and done, just a man. Men can be jailed. Now, *we* know that every time the Joker is incarcerated, he will escape at the time and place of his choosing. But Bats *doesn't* know that. He knows that the Joker has escaped before - but one assumes that, at every re-incarcertation, Arkham Asylam says (and probably quite persuasively) that they have implemented reforms/hired new staff/etc to ensure the Joker does not again escape.

So, once the Joker is incarcerated, the moral analysis is just like that involved in the conventional death penalty - do we kill someone who's already been effectively prevented from further offending? Bats says no - and so do I, for that matter.

But that's just ridiculous, frankly. If a mass murdering psychotic terrorist had escaped over and over from every jail he'd been sent to for years, it's INSANITY to think that THIS TIME you can hold him. Which is why not only Batman, but the whole judicial system in Gotham, their state and the country would have to be insane to believe it. But the truth is, the writers are just lazy.

[Skald the Rhymer]

But that's just ridiculous, frankly. If a mass murdering psychotic terrorist had escaped over and over from every jail he'd been sent to for years, it's INSANITY to think that THIS TIME you can hold him. Which is why not only Batman, but the whole judicial system in Gotham, their state and the country would have to be insane to believe it. But the truth is, the writers are just lazy.

This is true, but I wasn't even thinking of the Bats-sparing-J's-life thing when I started the thread. It was more the efficacy of, say, using half of the billion-dollar-batmobile budget to help the GCPD hire more patrolmen and cut down on the random muggings, rapes, & murders.

[RikWriter]

This is true, but I wasn't even thinking of the Bats-sparing-J's-life thing when I started the thread. It was more the efficacy of, say, using half of the billion-dollar-batmobile budget to help the GCPD hire more patrolmen and cut down on the random muggings, rapes, & murders.

Hell, why not just ask Superman or Green Lantern to strand the Joker on an uninhabited planet somewhere?

[Justin_Bailey]

The Joker is not some ordinary, grubby little murderer. Hell, he isn't even a serial killer. He's a mass murdering monster who has the blood of, I expect, hundreds (or even thousands) on his hands. Batsy refusing to off him is exactly like refusing to zorch Josef Mengele, while he was experimenting, because it would be "wrong."

This is why the Joker of Batman: The Animated Series and The Dark Knight is better. In The Animated Series, he's a thief with a funny bone and rarely goes for the kill (what with it being a children's cartoon at heart).

And in The Dark Knight, the few people he kills are almost all mobsters and criminals just as bad (or worse) than he is. He probably killed a few cops with the cell phone bomb, but they were corrupt cops.

[Tom Tildrum]

Hell, why not just ask Superman or Green Lantern to strand the Joker on an uninhabited planet somewhere?

As was essentially done with the Solomon Grundys of Earths-1 and -2, at one time or another. And Doomsday.

[Skald the Rhymer]

As was essentially done with the Solomon Grundys of Earths-1 and -2, at one time or another. And Doomsday.

I had forgotten about Solomon Grundy, but yes, that's right. Or almost. Supes dumped one on the moon and the second on a nameless asteroid. He exterminated several dozen when they popped up at once, but I'm willing to call that special circumstances.

[Tom Tildrum]

I had forgotten about Solomon Grundy, but yes, that's right. Or almost. Supes dumped one on the moon and the second on a nameless asteroid. He exterminated several dozen when they popped up at once, but I'm willing to call that special circumstances.

And way back when, Green Lantern of Earth-2 and Dr. Fate once teamed up to create a green-and-yellow force bubble, put SG in, and sent him into space.

[Intergalactic Gladiator]

The Joker is definitely crazier.


Anyone who would cover up a nice mustache with white makeup (http://bruehoyt.com/superheroes/DC/batman/joker/cesar1.gif) definitely has a few things wrong upstairs.

[Noelq]

The Joker is insane beyond measure.

The Batman is the most rational being ever conceived, hence his expertise as a detective.

Bruce Wayne - He's frackin' nuts.

[Snite]

They're both inherently insane. Batman is exactly that. Bruce Wayne is the mask that Batman wears to keep them money and resources he needs to keep flowing and this has been stated in the comics, and even in that one cartoon series where Batman is old and some kid has put on the costume. And he doesn't kill simply due to morality, a man who breaks a petty criminal's back doesn't have moral delimmas, it's just the killing repulses him because of witnessing his parents' deaths. Batman is insane with all the potential to some day snap and go on his own killing spree lurking within him.

And the Joker of course is a homicidal maniac.

[Scumpup]

See, that's a good point about Batman's brutality. He may not deliberately kill (any more) but he hands out some really vicious beatings.
Figure, in his typical encounters with petty criminals and supervillain henchmen, he's going against armed opponents, quite often more than one at a time. So we see him take them down with martial arts, batarangs, etc. The thing is, he has to take each one down and keep him down quickly. That means each one must be attacked with maximum brutality in order to do as much incapacitating damage as possible in the least amount of time. The chump he doesn't maim is the one who will backshoot him while he is dealing with the next one, and Batman knows this.
All those guys he knocked out over the years? Those were all concussions. Serious ones. Brain damage was inevitable, the only question was how much resulted. There were those who would never quite be the same afterward and (probably) those who died later. Blows to the head are very, very risky. We need not go into all the broken jaws, broken teeth, shattered eye sockets, etc. You don't deliever crushing kicks and punches to a person's face without doing that kind of damage...and remember Batsy wears reinforced boots and gloves. He needn't hold back for fear of hurting himself.
Guano Boy cannot but have fractured numerous badguy spines over the years, with all the kicks, throws, knife hand blows, etc. Also tossing guys off rooftops, swinging on ropes and slamming into them feet first, and other Bat Tricks. Wonder how many mooks he permanently paralyzed? Does Wayne Enterprises pay for the care of all the paraplegics and quadraplegics he's created?
He does love his chemical weapons, too. "Choking gas" in the early days, followed by various others that were friendlier sounding. How many small fry do you suppose he permanently blinded? How many had lifelong respiratory damage? How many just plain died? Those kinds of weapons are called "less lethal" IRL precisely because they are life threateningly dangerous and unpredictable in their results.
How many have stiff arms or walk with a limp? Many of those fancy martial arts moves destroy joints, and joints don't heal very well at all.
Now that I think about it, Bats was actually a BIGGER psycho back when he laughingly did all this while trading quips with Robin. Who else but a psycho could be so lighthearted about it?

[AClockworkMelon]

See, that's a good point about Batman's brutality. He may not deliberately kill (any more) but he hands out some really vicious beatings.
Figure, in his typical encounters with petty criminals and supervillain henchmen, he's going against armed opponents, quite often more than one at a time. So we see him take them down with martial arts, batarangs, etc. The thing is, he has to take each one down and keep him down quickly. That means each one must be attacked with maximum brutality in order to do as much incapacitating damage as possible in the least amount of time. The chump he doesn't maim is the one who will backshoot him while he is dealing with the next one, and Batman knows this.
All those guys he knocked out over the years? Those were all concussions. Serious ones. Brain damage was inevitable, the only question was how much resulted. There were those who would never quite be the same afterward and (probably) those who died later. Blows to the head are very, very risky. We need not go into all the broken jaws, broken teeth, shattered eye sockets, etc. You don't deliever crushing kicks and punches to a person's face without doing that kind of damage...and remember Batsy wears reinforced boots and gloves. He needn't hold back for fear of hurting himself.
Guano Boy cannot but have fractured numerous badguy spines over the years, with all the kicks, throws, knife hand blows, etc. Also tossing guys off rooftops, swinging on ropes and slamming into them feet first, and other Bat Tricks. Wonder how many mooks he permanently paralyzed? Does Wayne Enterprises pay for the care of all the paraplegics and quadraplegics he's created?
He does love his chemical weapons, too. "Choking gas" in the early days, followed by various others that were friendlier sounding. How many small fry do you suppose he permanently blinded? How many had lifelong respiratory damage? How many just plain died? Those kinds of weapons are called "less lethal" IRL precisely because they are life threateningly dangerous and unpredictable in their results.
How many have stiff arms or walk with a limp? Many of those fancy martial arts moves destroy joints, and joints don't heal very well at all.
Now that I think about it, Bats was actually a BIGGER psycho back when he laughingly did all this while trading quips with Robin. Who else but a psycho could be so lighthearted about it?But-but-but they were BAD guys!

+1

[Scumpup]

But that's just ridiculous, frankly. If a mass murdering psychotic terrorist had escaped over and over from every jail he'd been sent to for years, it's INSANITY to think that THIS TIME you can hold him. Which is why not only Batman, but the whole judicial system in Gotham, their state and the country would have to be insane to believe it. But the truth is, the writers are just lazy.

You know, on re-reading this post, I have to wonder: Even if Batman won't knock off The Joker, why hasn't some Alphabet Agency that handles wet work done it? It isn't like he's hiding in the mountains of Pakistan or anything. He's almost always in or near Gotham City, often right there in Arkham Asylum. It doesn't need to be anything elaborate or high tech either. A bullet (or a whole magazine) through the skull and no more Mr. J.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Joker, for a reason not mentioned - If crime were to stop in Gotham, crazy violent Batman would stop beating the crap out of people. By contrast, nothing will ever stop the Joker.

[Race Harley]

Bat's crazier. Who else in their right mind would think that they could save the world from itself? :dubious:

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Joker, for a reason not mentioned - If crime were to stop in Gotham, crazy violent Batman would stop beating the crap out of people. By contrast, nothing will ever stop the Joker.

Actually -- as per DKR -- if Batman ever quit, the Joker would quietly shuffle around in a mental hospital without ever so much as breaking into a broad grin, just watching TV and taking it easy until and unless the big guy came out of retirement.

[Revenant Threshold]

Joker. Batman is, certainly, obsessive, often lacking in empathy, arrogant, a loner, and generally pretty mentally damaged, but if you took out the "leaping around rooftops" bit, then all of those things aren't to the extent that a real person would be locked up, and within the DC universe the whole superheroing front is a lot less of an irrational choice. Too, he has some amount of self-awareness of his nutjobbery; he understands that he's pretty crazy himself, he's taken steps, at times, to ensure he doesn't go off the deep end himself, including his "no guns, no killing" rule; and he's able to play the part of Bruce Wayne, a normal and gregarious person, with apparent complete success. He does appear at least to understand normality, even if he doesn't have it. The Joker does have some self-awareness at times, but often not. He too is capable of playing a "normal" role at times, but even then it's not certain whether that's his choice. He does have empathy, because he clearly understands Batman as well as the public at large; he just doesn't often care about that. And i'd say that last piece is probably the most damning bit that makes Joker the kookiest. When Batman loses, he's annoyed, he's upset, he's angry, he vows to do better, he angsts. In short, he reacts as a person would. When Joker loses, sometimes he cares, sometimes he doesn't. He does have up and down periods, but you can't necessarily link them to outside causes.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Actually -- as per DKR -- if Batman ever quit, the Joker would quietly shuffle around in a mental hospital without ever so much as breaking into a broad grin, just watching TV and taking it easy until and unless the big guy came out of retirement.

Sure he would. That's what he wants you to think. heh. hehe hehehe Ha He HA ha HA HAHAHAHAHAHHHAAHAHA

[Spoons]

I haven't read superhero comics in years, but I've been having some fun with the graphic novel section of my local public library. For the most part, I've been enjoying the Superman and Batman story collections with stories I remember from my childhood in the 1960s. But curiosity has got the better of me, and I've been exploring the later stories as well.

In terms of relatively recent Batman stories, I've so far made my way through various books but am really enjoying Batman: No Man's Land. Holy vendetta, Batman! This rivalry is nothing like I remember.* My reading of the more recent Batman stories has been a small sample, but compared to what I remember from my childhood, I can see that Batman is crazy, but Joker is downright psychopathic. In response to the OP, I'd have to say Joker is the crazier one.

* And when did Penguin become such a cultured businessman? (Albeit one whose legitimacy is questionable.)