I wanted to respond to something you said earlier. You said I was arguing that Melfi had a responsibility to future potential rape victims to tell Tony about what happened to her. That's not what I was saying.
Well, you said (with my italics), 'If your daughter was raped and/or murdered, and you learned that Melfi
could have prevented it by telling Tony what happened to her and who did it, you would
hardly think she did the right thing by keeping quiet.
I responded to that with the same logic the argument itself required.
She had to make a decision on whether or not to tell Tony based on her own conscience and her own principles. The decision was hers to make. But just because someone has a right to make their own decision about something doesn't mean that I or someone else doesn't have the right to be disappointed about that decision if it wasn't what we were hoping for.
Why would you be disappointed?
I suspect it's because you want Rossi to get some sort of 'comeuppance', right?
Why is it Melfi's responsibility - Rossi's victim - to make sure of this? If you say it
isn't her responsibility, then why would you then make a judgement after her decision not to tell Tony?
Isn't Melfi's 'moral predicament' a direct result of bureaucratic injustice?
Suppose I hope that Clint Eastwood will make another western (I don't, but let's just suppose for the sake of argument). Eastwood is totally within his rights to decide (as I believe he actually has) that Unforgiven will be his last western, that he will never make another one. But that doesn't mean I don't have a right to be disappointed about his decision if I wanted another Eastwood western.
So what do you want to happen from Melfi's decision to tell Tony?
For Tony to arrange a hit on Rossi and for Melfi not to suffer from some delayed backlash of extreme guilt, both personal and professional?
Your logic weighs heavily upon the victim. You haven't responded to any of the other issues I've brought up.
