How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

[fbdaury]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

As an example of how I dealt with my character in Corven's game accidentally killing a government stormtrooper, and also to plug my own work, check out the new post I just put into the Jack's Profile/journal thread that I just Necro'd.

[Libra]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Without Morals, what seperates heros from villains?

 

I do agree Superman can be crippled by his boy-scout mentality at times, but I would much rather have him protecting my home than Wolverine.

[Katherine]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I like my superheroes (or any fictional heroes really) to appeal to what I feel are higher values. To me that generally means that at least try not to kill, its not always possible but they make the attempt even if use of lethal force might be more expedient. Of course like all rules there are exceptions to this, but I like to see the character at least be given pause by the idea and have to deal with the consquences.

 

Superhaoes doesn't have to be fairy tale paragons of virtue but they should, IMO, be people you could genuinely like and admire. Wolverine is a fine character (most of the time). He has a dark side, a beatial nature that he is struggling to control and harness to what the right thing. He could take the Sabertooth route, give in and become a animalistic serial killer or flee from society to become a feral loner, but he tries not to. Sometimes he wins,, sometimes he loses but the heroism is in the struggle not the victory. Its when he's portrayed as a simple minded brutish thug who kills out of expediency or simple bloodlust that he stops being a "hero" in my opinion. Something similar happend to The Authority, it became all about the ultra violence and the exploding heads instead of making the world a better place and trying to keep a moral compass when you have godlike power.

 

IMO, the Punisher isn't a superhero. He is a vigilante. Frank Castle does (or did, haven't read it in awhile) strive ot minimize collateral damage, but his goal was flat out murder and vengence. Vengence is a self centered motivation. I can understand a character like him and bloody minded quest for revenge, particularly against "Evil" can be entertaining (even emotionally satifying) story (Take almost every Martial arts movie ever made ) but its not one about a "Hero" in my opinion.

 

So to actually answer the question, how do I feel about superheroes that kill. How I feel is based on the hows, whys and aftermath of their act, not just the act itself.

[Ehreval]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Of course, all that follows is imho. Mind you that I'm talking about super-powered characters, and since I'm a fan of both comics and games, I'll be using the terms "author" and "player" interchangeably, in case, I miss using both with a slash between somewhere.

 

Superheroes who kill disgust me in direct proportion to their body count. When I read a hero book, I want to read about heroes *defeating* murderous scum, not *being* muderous scum.

 

Personally, I don't think that folks like that really count as heroes. They're vigilantes in the worse sense of the word. (No offense intended to Vigilante who, tends to get things done in a much cleaner fashion.)

 

A superhero who's too stupid and gets himself into a situation where he has to kill in order to get the job done is almost as bad as a hero whose first option is guns blazing. Of course, any talented writer can make it impossible for a hero to save the universe without killing someone, even lots of people, but that's hero abuse.

 

While putting superheroes in situations where it looks like they should or must kill can make for interesting writing, having them actually do it is a tawdry conclusion to what should be an exploration of morals/ethics and the hero's personality.

 

The cool thing about Superman isn't that he has the invulnerability or the strength or the heat vision. It's that he's the best of the best, morally. He has nearly illimitable power along with the wisdom to use it justly.

 

Regardless of whether or not the character has attributes that are super-powered, he should be super. Sure, it's pretty easy for Superman or Thor to come up with non-lethal solutions most of the time. They've got options that most people don't. But even non-powered heroes like Batman, wrestling with monstrous inner demons, know that murder is the evil that spawned him, not a solution to embrace.

 

There are two and only two reasons a superhero kills:

1) The author/player is lazy and cannot find a more elegant and enlightening solution.

2) The character is smarmy and evil and does not deserve the title of superhero, at which point the author/player should be ashamed or switch to a more appropriate genre.

 

-- Ehreval

[Iuz the Evil]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

I am reminded of one of my favorite lines from the Incredibles "Valuing life does not make you weak" (or words to that effect).

 

I don't really have a problem with heroes who kill, so long as it's either a genre convention (iron age vs. silver), it's character-consistent, or there is some huge threat (say, like 3 silver-age kryptonians who inform the hero they will be killing all life Earth just as soon as they get free... and they will get free) which cannot be reasonably resolved by other means. Needs to advance the story and not be completely out of left field making me go "wtf?!", that's pretty much my bottom line on "superheroes who kill".

 

I also agree with the idea that the specific writer over an extended run of a hero's comic will have a huge impact on the relative "point cost" of the CvK the hero has. The writer's ability to respect the character and write true to the character's continuity and values has a big impact on how much I enjoy the story.

[Kristopher]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Without Morals, what seperates heros from villains?

 

I do agree Superman can be crippled by his boy-scout mentality at times, but I would much rather have him protecting my home than Wolverine.

 

Given their respective power levels, that's a fairly rational conclusion.

 

However, one can have morals without having "superhuman" morals -- a hero doesn't need to be a paragon of virtue. That kind of hero, the perfect person, better than the rest of us in every way, just doesn't exist. My suspension of disbelief is stretched further by moral "perfection" than it is by people who fire eyebeams or lift tanks over their head.

 

And, IMO, Superman's morals aren't superior. He's unwilling to make hard choices, and other people have suffered for the sake of his clean hands.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Of course, all that follows is imho. Mind you that I'm talking about super-powered characters, and since I'm a fan of both comics and games, I'll be using the terms "author" and "player" interchangeably, in case, I miss using both with a slash between somewhere.

*snipped lots of examples*

 

For purposes of RPG's, we should also put "GM" in as interchangeable with "author" in those examples.

[JmOz]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Actually' date=' a better question is why the government hasn't executed the Joker yet? Insane or not, his body count would get him the chair, even in states without capital punishment![/quote']

 

I agree, though think the goverment might "Let" him escape and for him to "Accidently" get shot as he left the cell (That is to say that after shooting him they opened the door.

 

The issue I have in this is not that a super hero should not kill, but what is there stance on capital punishment.

 

Gold/Silver/Bronze age heroes tended to be cops (Arrest the bad guy after he commited a crime, minimal restraint nessesarily)

 

Iron tended to add Judge/Jury/& Executioner.

 

Very rarely have the iconic characters not been willing to kill if it was the only way to save a life, they just normaly found another way, that is not weakness, that is character.

 

The problem with alot of characters is that comic book judicial and penal systems are ineffective

[Beetle]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

And' date=' IMO, Superman's morals aren't superior. He's unwilling to make hard choices, and other people have suffered for the sake of his clean hands.[/quote']I don't see how refusal to compromise his code of ethics equals "refusal to make hard choices." It is the hard choice.

[Mentor]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

I always though so.

 

But remember this was Pre WWII, criminality was thought to be a disease, and Doc was "curing" them. He was also erasing their memories so that now well, they would not be tortured by the memories of what they had done while "sick." And IIRC, it did end up biting him in the rear.

 

But still creepy.

I have had this discussion on numerous occasions with several GMs and friends. I have a Psychic PC who has total code vs killing but has been known to make the defeated crook surrender himself to the authorities in remorse. He doesn't have the points for a very large psychic surgery, but he is working on it. The creepy aspect in my case is handled by the power being defined as not preventing the perp from considering the nasty activity, just preventing him from carrying it out. Free will is a philosophical and theological situation, not criminology, IMHO.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Thus far, I haven't chimed in becasue I suspect that my feelings on the topic will make a LONG post, but for a quick sidenote...

Those of you who dislike "killer" heros, still may want to resist the temptation to use Judge Dredd as an example. He is an example of an EXTREMELY moral and upright character who kills. Remember the idea of a social contract.... he has had his authority granted to him by society. He's no different than a Knight or Samurai (both of whom have certain culturally granted powers of summary justice and executon.)

I will grant, however, that if you are a fanatical follower of Kantian ethics then you'll still hate him, but hes not a good example of a "renegade" who kills simply because he can. He has the law and (most) of the population behind him.

[Wanderer]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

I don't see how refusal to compromise his code of ethics equals "refusal to make hard choices." It is the hard choice.

 

The choice is very hard to swallow for the innocents who suffer or are endangered because he refuses to sully his oh so noble hands with the blood of the evil. For him it's nothing but a cop-out.

 

Since he has freely accepted the duty to protect and defend those weaker than himself (much like a cop or soldier), he has the moral duty to do all what it's necessary to accomplish it. If it truly comes to kill, so be it.

 

If he wished not to be put before this choice, he should stop being a superhero and hang the cape.

[Wanderer]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Without Morals' date=' what seperates heros from villains? [/quote']

 

I think here lies much of the crux in our disagreement. A superhuman hero who kills may have a very definite and important moral code. Not all or even most moral codes include an absolute refusal to kill, even for self-defense, or protect innocents or the community, on the contrary. Absolute pacifism is to say the least quite questionable. I just have to remark you cannot equate the lack of the particular morality you advocate with the lack of all morals. It's ridiculous and uncceptable to equate truly indiscriminate murder with killng in open, fair battle, in war conditions, to protect innocents, in self-defense, or a vigilante that acts to punish the worst crimes, especially when the society has been shown unwilling or ineffectual to do the same.

 

I do agree Superman can be crippled by his boy-scout mentality at times, but I would much rather have him protecting my home than Wolverine.

 

Understable point, taking into account their respective power levels. On the rest, come on, when Wolvie has shown himself not dependable on protecting his charges, comrades and loved ones ?? If it means that armed thugs intruding on a home to rob or kill have much more probabilities to get in coffin with Wolvie as a guard than Supes, forgive me if their fate leaves me utterly without tears. Live by the gun, die by the adamantium claw.

[Beetle]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Since he has freely accepted the duty to protect and defend those weaker than himself (much like a cop or soldier)' date=' he has the moral duty to do all what it's necessary to accomplish it. If it truly comes to kill, so be it.[/quote']Except that unlike a cop or a soldier (or Judge Dredd apparently) he hasn't been sanctioned by the community to kill. He has neither the authority nor the right to kill as a matter of punishment. He doesn't have the right to kill Brainiac instead of capturing him and turning him over to the authorities no matter how likely it is that Brainiac will escape and do more harm. It's the state's responsibility to deal with that possibility, not a private citizen's (regardless of how powerful he is).

 

I guess our difference really boils down to the fact that you see cop-out where I see admirable self-restraint.

[robbneu]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

I tend to like to play my heroes as true heroes that don't believe in killing their foes. Taking in a foe, alive, takes a little more skill... a little more effort... and speaks to a higher code of ethics (belief in a fair system, no man can set himself up as the law, etc.). I've also gotten an enjoyable amount of mileage from playing the "quaint" or "naive" hero in a less principled team. A stand against killing, or a defiance to "stooping to their level," just seems more heroic to me.

 

It's an intriguing puzzle, though. Walking the line definitely would have its dramatic pay-offs.

 

Robb

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

The choice is very hard to swallow for the innocents who suffer or are endangered because he refuses to sully his oh so noble hands with the blood of the evil. For him it's nothing but a cop-out.

 

Since he has freely accepted the duty to protect and defend those weaker than himself (much like a cop or soldier), he has the moral duty to do all what it's necessary to accomplish it. If it truly comes to kill, so be it.

 

If he wished not to be put before this choice, he should stop being a superhero and hang the cape.

 

Refusing to be a Superhero would be a gigantic cop-out. He has a ridiculous power level, and he does protect people as is. With his power level, not doign anything to help others is the one thing that really can't be considered a moral choice.

 

He believes in protecting the weak from the strong; that includes those he's stronger than from himself.

 

He knows he could get away with killing. He even knows he could get away with killing those he really has no need to... and even those who might only borderline deserve it. Heck, he's Superman. He could get away with killing the innocent if he really wanted to.

 

We've seen what can happen once people adjst to killing in real life. They tend to view it as increasingly more acceptable. Do you REALLY want someone with his power level tread down that path?

 

Also, the taking of a human life is a huge thing. A large percentage of soldiers end up unable to do so. Superman was never trained to kill. The odds are actually against any given human being, in the cruch, being able to bring themselves to do it, even if trained. (iirc, anyway)

[robbneu]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

The choice is very hard to swallow for the innocents who suffer or are endangered because he refuses to sully his oh so noble hands with the blood of the evil. For him it's nothing but a cop-out.

 

Beating up on Superman for having a higher set of ethics has become a popular sport, especially since the protrayal of him in "The Dark Knight Returns," and it's unfortunate. No one ever goes after Spiderman and the two characters basically have the same moral outlook. The difference is their power level and I just don't understand why Superman should have any greater responsibility to sacrifice his moral beliefs just because he's on a different scale than Spiderman. To me, he has an even stronger responsibility to adhere to his ethics. In Superman's case, it's not just "with great power comes great responsibility," but "with greater power comes greater responsibility."

 

Robb

[Wanderer]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Except that unlike a cop or a soldier (or Judge Dredd apparently) he hasn't been sanctioned by the community to kill.

 

He is not sanctioned to mess with natural disasters, stopping robberies or repel alien invasions, either. If he truly feels he has no business and responsibility with the security of his fellow man outside of the written laws, then he has absolutely no business being a superhero. Hang the cape, return to full-time journalism, or enroll in the U.S. Army or the U.N. as a supersoldier. He is a unsanctioned vigilante, by his own actions. If he chooses that self-bestowed mandate, he has the moral duty to kill when it's truly necessary for the public safety, sanction or not.

 

He doesn't have the right to kill Brainiac instead of capturing him and turning him over to the authorities no matter how likely it is that Brainiac will escape and do more harm. It's the state's responsibility to deal with that possibility, not a private citizen's (regardless of how powerful he is).

 

Apart that when the state isn't doing its business and duties fairly and adequately, the obligation to obey it is nullified and revoked, he isn't wimpy Joe Public. He has as much power as a whole superpower, and his responsibilities are comparable. If Brainiac endangers the world, he has the duty to stop him by any means necessary. If the state is powerless or unable or willing to stop Brainiac, and he can, his duty is clear, or each and every drop of innocent blood and tears that Braniac causes is on his head, as much as he had put the weapon in Brainiac's hand. The great moral lesson of the last century is that laws cannot never ever be an excuse to do evil, by action or inaction. Great Powers Brings Great Responsibility. It does not end because it impinges on the state's domain. Doesn't he want to kill Brainiac ? Fine, find an equally effective solution. Send him to the Phantom Zone, brainwash him, or whatever. If a solution does not work, next time escalate. Exile him, brainwash him, kill him, disintegrate him and disperse atoms throughout the Galaxy, pull out favors with assorted Deities and Cosmic Entities to have soul blasted to oblivion. It is true that given the realities of comic-book universes, neither death or extradimensional exile nor brainwashing are definitive solutions, but superheroes have to keep try, just because they surely so often can do more and better than the state. Any JLA member should have pushed the Joker into the Phantom Zone or cast him into the sun the second time he escaped Arkam. If this troubles legalistic consciences, I have doubts just the size of Jupiter that any jury of sane and fair-minded sentients would declare a private citizen killing the Joker on sight murder.

 

I guess our difference really boils down to the fact that you see cop-out where I see admirable self-restraint.

 

The difference is that I see moral imperatives as preceding and superior the laws in the books, and fear and loathe and despise the man whose moral imperatives are carefully contained and boundaried by laws and regulations like a well-trimmed lawn.

[Brandi]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Actually' date=' a better question is why the government hasn't executed the Joker yet? Insane or not, his body count would get him the chair, even in states without capital punishment![/quote']

 

Time to break out the Criminal Law flash cards (no really; found 'em by the dumpster at my apartment, disposed of by a student who didn't need them for some reason or another):

 

Under the Model Penal Code, the Joker might be considered criminally insane since he lacks substantial capability to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law (the "irresistable impulse" test of mental competence). Mind you, I'm not sure if the MPC's approach would mark a genuine psychopath as legally insane: IANAL, just someone who found an interesting reference by the dumpster.

 

He might also be found incompetent to stand trial if he cannot assist his lawyer in preparing a defense (it would be a violation of due process).

 

Finally, if he's considered insane enough to not understand the nature and purpose of his punishment, he couldn't be executed until he was cured.

 

Depending on how the Joker's written up he might qualify for one or more of these, in which case the budget for Arkham Asylum had better get a big boost in order to increase security measures.

[nexus]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Edit: No, I promised myself I wouldn't get sucked into this. Its largely pointless.

[Wanderer]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

 

He knows he could get away with killing. He even knows he could get away with killing those he really has no need to... and even those who might only borderline deserve it. Heck, he's Superman. He could get away with killing the innocent if he really wanted to.

 

Then his moral duty, and the truly heroic thing to do, is to stiffen his spine and be forevermore vigilant that he always use lethal force only when it's really necessary. Resist the temptation to the sliding scale, but ensure that when dirtying his hands with blood is really necessary to protect innocents, he is ready to do his part. Having the fibre to use power responsibility, no more, but no less. Otherwise, it's like saying I'm a doctor, or psychologist, or priest, but I refuse to approach help people I might be attracted to, because I cannot be sure to resist the temptation to make a move. It comes to keep seeing the difference between summarily dispatching the Joker or Darkseid, and a jaywalker. It isn't really so difficult, especialy for one whose moral and psycghological fibre is so vaunted.

 

We've seen what can happen once people adjst to killing in real life. They tend to view it as increasingly more acceptable. Do you REALLY want someone with his power level tread down that path?

 

Phoney. For each cop or soldier that comes home psychologically scarred, there is the vast majority that comes home, and keeps on as a well-adjusted person. Superheroes fight for a good cause, witness first-hand the positive results of their actions (keeping the world safe! Nothing could be goodier), often enjoy the respect and admiration of common men. Like WWII veterans, they have extremely strong balances to counteract the relative psychological shock of killing some of the worst scum of the universe. It's not killing civilians, it's eliminating thugs and mass menaces that in all reasonable evidence, deserve whatever they get. Or do have any doubt that for the likes of Joker, it's anything else than "shoot on sight" ??

 

Hey, superheroes are meant to be role models, aren't they ? Do show that they can keep their moral compass while doing what's necessary for the common good, instead of hiding behind trite cop-outs and washing their hands of innocent blood.

 

Also, the taking of a human life is a huge thing. A large percentage of soldiers end up unable to do so. Superman was never trained to kill. The odds are actually against any given human being, in the cruch, being able to bring themselves to do it, even if trained. (iirc, anyway)

 

Superheroes do get to witness the atrocities that the worst (super)criminals committ, or attempt to, over and over. I cannot think of a greater motivator for quickly curing one out of pacifism. True a tiny minority couldn't be moved even by a tour to mass murder or serial killing sites to renounce it (people are strange), but all psychological likelihood tells that those would never feel the call to be superheroes in the first place.

[fbdaury]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Time to break out the Criminal Law flash cards (no really; found 'em by the dumpster at my apartment, disposed of by a student who didn't need them for some reason or another):

 

Under the Model Penal Code, the Joker might be considered criminally insane since he lacks substantial capability to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law (the "irresistable impulse" test of mental competence). Mind you, I'm not sure if the MPC's approach would mark a genuine psychopath as legally insane: IANAL, just someone who found an interesting reference by the dumpster.

 

He might also be found incompetent to stand trial if he cannot assist his lawyer in preparing a defense (it would be a violation of due process).

 

Finally, if he's considered insane enough to not understand the nature and purpose of his punishment, he couldn't be executed until he was cured.

 

Depending on how the Joker's written up he might qualify for one or more of these, in which case the budget for Arkham Asylum had better get a big boost in order to increase security measures.

 

Considering his bodycount, honestly try to find one judge alive that would not say "not insane" and then as they strap him into the electric chair though- with someone like the Joker who is beyond curing and who can't be effectively held, the rules would change.

[robbneu]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Hey' date=' superheroes are meant to be role models, aren't they ? Do show that they can keep their moral compass while doing what's necessary for the common good, instead of hiding behind trite cop-outs and washing their hands of innocent blood.[/quote']

 

Wanderer, just so I'm sure that I'm seeing your viewpoint properly, you're saying that refusing to set yourself up as judge, jury, and executioner is a cop-out? I'm not trying to pick on you, but I'm not sure I completely understand your point of view. Refusing to kill a mass murderer makes you equally as guilty as the person who took the lives?

 

Robb

[RDU Neil]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

 

I guess our difference really boils down to the fact that you see cop-out where I see admirable self-restraint.

 

 

It is admirable self-restraint if the game world/society/justice system is functional and effective in handling these threats, and the PC Hero doesn't have to rely on writer/GM contrivance to succeed.

 

It is a cop-out when the game world/society/justice system has proven, again and again, its inability to handle/control/eliminate these threats. It is especially annoying when scope of action is so far above the grasp of society (the Emperor Joker scenario for one) that such rules simply don't apply... and trying to make them apply is either monumentally and dangerously naive, or a massive cop-out.

 

I've encouraged players in my campaigns to have a respect for life and for social functions... because I have shown over time that society DOES function, and that they can earn a place of respect within it if they choose... or they can try to change it where it doesn't work.

 

Villains put in prison, stay in prison.

 

Death in combat is just that... it is not murder or evil, it is a result of extreme violence.

 

Violence has repercussions, both good and bad, and should never be taken lightly... there is no safe attack or casual violence with "normal" attacks. Biff, bam Pow! doesn't exist in my games.

 

Murder has repercussions... casual violence will likely end badly if behavior is not reformed.

 

Utter refusal to kill would be pacifism, in my game. You could never justify to me why throwing around 10d6 Normal is ok... but 3d6+1K is not. An attack is an attack and it injures and kills. It may be less LIKELY to kill, but there is no sure thing, and violence carries the risk of permanent, final consequences... so a Code Vs. Killing is, for all practical purposes a code of non-violence, in my games.

 

(Which makes me realize that I need to adjust a players current disadvantages.)

 

Will not put a life in danger when there is no immediate threat.

 

Now THAT is a solid disadvantage (like recently two heroes clashed over an investigation of some sealed prison cells. Power had to be turned off to allow the heroes to "desol" in and see who was inside... but doing so shut off life support. One PC said, "If the are a threat, we don't let 'em out" and another said, "I'm not turning off the power if there is a chance that we'd have to allow one prisoner to suffocate!" (This was a the second guy's CvK coming into play) but having seen what the second guy is willing to dish out in combat... I'm going to have to change around the disads to better represent how the PC is being played.

[Wanderer]

Re: How do you feel about Superheroes that kill?

 

Time to break out the Criminal Law flash cards (no really; found 'em by the dumpster at my apartment, disposed of by a student who didn't need them for some reason or another):

 

Under the Model Penal Code, the Joker might be considered criminally insane since he lacks substantial capability to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law (the "irresistable impulse" test of mental competence). Mind you, I'm not sure if the MPC's approach would mark a genuine psychopath as legally insane: IANAL, just someone who found an interesting reference by the dumpster.

 

He might also be found incompetent to stand trial if he cannot assist his lawyer in preparing a defense (it would be a violation of due process).

 

Finally, if he's considered insane enough to not understand the nature and purpose of his punishment, he couldn't be executed until he was cured.

 

Depending on how the Joker's written up he might qualify for one or more of these, in which case the budget for Arkham Asylum had better get a big boost in order to increase security measures.

 

I have not read Batman so extensively to have a full, comprehensive image of the Joker's psychological profile (and I'm foremost reasoning from my country's test for mental competence, which does not fully conform with the common law one), so it's difficult to give a definitive answer (and popular media crazies are in 90% cases written so they only hardly conform with RL patterns of mental problems), but very tentatively, in a professional POV, the Joker most qualifies for extreme psychopathy, or a very severe Antisocial Personality Disorder. Therefore, he's toast. Like almost all serial killers in RL, he goes for a life or death sentence, not the asylum. Sending him to Arkam is a narrative trick for keeping a popular character around, but in RL one like him would go to prison or lethal injection. Yea, this includes someone like Hannibal. In all likelihood, in RL someone like him would go to maximum security prison.

 

In all but extreme cases, legal systems are very reluctant to allow psychopaths to be sheltered by the insanity defense. In most cases, they are recognized mental competent. Very roughly, there is not a delusion clouding their judgement about criminal actions, they know it's wrong, and there is not a disease creating an irresistible impulse to specifically do the criminal action, it's just that they do not feel the normal altruistic-empathic urge, or the awareness of possible future negative consequences, strongly enough to counterbalance the normal urge to satisfy the pleasant immediate rewarding action, to be aggressive (assault, kill), have sex (rape), possess (rob), etc. Yes, I know it is a theoretically questionable argument and they are not mentally sane. But since their disorder does not directly and massively impair judgement (it's not a psychosis), and so many recidivist criminals have it (aso because controlling it by therapy is on the average rather more difficult than a psychosis, more severe, but with more effective treatments), for the sake of public safety, the legal system in most cases chooses not to hand to a disorder like psychopathy the protection of the insanity defense (in much the same way so as having alcholism or a drug addiction is not regarded as excusing for crimes done while intoxicated).