User blog comment:Justice Avenger/Which young heros you think should be added to The Team?/@comment-5180758-20120616120059/@comment-4928331-20120621024401

And the prize of even-headed moderator goes to Cari1984! You should do it more often :)

Cheshire as Team Member
Alright then, here's a stab at answering the original question. Short answer is no, she is unsuitable. This is not Teen Titans.

Long answer follows:

Would Jade be a good addition to the Team? I don't think so. She's a fully-grown woman in her mid-20s, more suitable for the Justice League. Would the League vote her in? Would they be able to trust her? Remember the round-table discussion in Season 1 - that applies double to the Team, who's composed of younger, more vulnerable members.

I kind of get what Matt was trying to say about her morality though. In her Season 1 portrayal, Cheshire is an assassin through and through who actually enjoys what she is doing. The only thing she does not enjoy is working with her old man. Does that make her cold-blooded? No, because she protects the people she cares about. That DOES make her amoral, and even perhaps immoral. But since she's a "just doing my job" kind of person, that tilts more towards amorality.

Is she beyond redemption? Unlike Cheshire of the comics who nuked the entire country of Qurac, she hasn't slaughtered a large number of people. So no, she can be forgiven. But she probably killed a fair share of people during her work as an assassin. If she wishes to come into the light, so to speak, she will have to face up to her sins. Remember, remorse nd forgiveness is not enough for redemption - there must be just punishment.

Of course, she'll likely be incarcerated for life, and then some. But perhaps that can be mitigated by a brilliant enough lawyer, and some endorsement from the League (for example, a plea bargain for testimony against the Shadows).

Lian
Should sins of the Father project to the child? Some religions think so (think of original sin). But by and large, we as a society have dissociated the acts of the parent from the child. Even if Cheshire is a mass-murderess, that does not mean her daughter Lian is a worthless piece of trash who doesn't deserve to exist, and must be killed by an evil supervillain.

Red Hood
And then we come to Jason Todd, who surfaced in the discussion earlier. Yes, Jason makes it a point to kill criminals. In that respect he's an anti-hero like the Punisher, although he is often portrayed in a villainous light. Is it wrong to kill criminals? Not if you subscribe to the Biblical "eye for a eye" edict in the Old Testament. Or if you live in an Islamic country that subscribes to Shariah law.

Note that even if you subscribe to the aforementioned moral standards, there is a big distinction between heinous crimes (murderers, serial rapists, terrorists) and petty crimes (theft, speeding). Of course, theft can get your hand chopped off in some jurisdictions (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Sudan); perhaps that's a moral country Mr. Naismith might like to move to.

But for large parts of the world, you generally don't act as judge, jury, and executioner. These functions are kept separate for a reason - it is far too tempting to take shortcuts in law enforcement otherwise. That is why vigilanteeism is against the law. That is why Batman is pretty much inutile because his moral code prevents him from killing criminals like the Joker, Killer Croc, and Mr. Zsasz.

In summary, what Jason Todd does is STILL wrong. The only time it is acceptable to kill criminals is when you catch them doing crimes that endanger the innocent (hostage takers, for example). Red Hood just blows up their headquarters, and that puts him squarely in the same boat as Cheshire.