Season 2 of "Daredevil" sparks a debate that's been going on long before the show's premier: is it best to apprehend criminals or simply eliminate them? It's a matter of effectiveness versus righteousness.
Matt Murdock, AKA Daredevil, and Frank Castle—the Punisher—are both vigilantes with conflicting ideologies on the issue. Murdock is a lawyer by day and hero by night, but he, like many heroes, has a no kill policy because he believes it's not up to him to decide who lives or dies. Castle, on the other hand, is a war hero turned anti-hero because he concludes the only solution to ending crime is by killing the enemy.
In one scenario that takes place between Daredevil and Punisher, Daredevil asserts, "I believe it's not my call, [to kill] and it ain't yours either." The Punisher replies, "You know what I think of you, hero? I think you're a half-measure. I think you're a man who can't finish the job."
Another scene I'd like to highlight is a conversation between Matt and Karen (his legal assistant and potential lover). Karen says, "I keep asking myself if there's really a difference between someone who saves lives
and someone who prevents lives from needing to be saved at all." Matt responds, "It's not Frank's decision who lives or dies. That's up to God... or sometimes a jury... Vengeance is not justice. What [Franks] doing is completely wrong." Karen answers, "But, right or wrong, you can't deny that it works."
It's no surprise Murdock puts his faith in God and the law, after all, he is a Catholic lawyer. In season 1 of "Daredevil" it's made clear Murdock is a religious man with how often he visits the church (mostly due to his guilt for taking the law into his own hands). However, in this season Murdock fully embraces this side of himself and as a result, gives up his normal life in order to continue protecting Hell's Kitchen. Daredevil ultimately believes that criminals, like anyone else, should be given the opportunity to be saved—from themselves. If people like Castle terminate convicts, they are never given the chance to change. Unlike the Punisher, Daredevil doesn't instill a fear of eventually turning on the innocent people of the city.
Although Murdock's views resemble the noble qualities good heroes embody, Castle's anti-hero tactics are just as cheered on (if not more). Realistically speaking, it's hard to believe anyone could forgive—let alone protect—someone who has a history of hurting others, specifically one's own family. In Castle's case, his family is murdered right in front of him so he's out for revenge. Punisher doesn't agree with Daredevil's method due to the corruption in the criminal justice system. Criminals behind bars are eventually put back on the streets where they can continue to wreak havoc amidst the innocent lives of Hell's Kitchen. Citizens feel safer knowing the Punisher is out to kill criminals, but those who truly support the law and/or God would rather see him incarcerated. It's only a matter of time a "psychopath" like Castle could potentially hurt innocents.
It's ironic the "Devil" of Hell's Kitchen is the true punisher of crime whereas the "Punisher" extinguishes crime by annihilating criminals. With that said, whose side are you on? Do you agree with Karen's acknowledgment of Castle's method? Or should he serve time for killing criminals—a crime in itself. Is Daredevil merely a half-measure as Punisher puts it? Or do his ethical views make him a beneficial hero?
