Between “That ’70s Show” star Danny Masterson’s May 31 conviction for raping two women and his being sentenced last week to 30 years in prison, his former co-stars Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis, wrote two of the several dozens of letters the judge received on Masterson’s behalf. Other actors on the sitcom (including Debra Jo Rupp and Kurtwood Smith) also wrote letters for Masterson, as did his wife’s brother, William Baldwin, and brother/sister actors Giovanni and Marissa Ribisi.
Kutcher and Kunis (who are married to each other) didn’t just ask for leniency for their former co-star — Kunis described him as “an outstanding role model and friend” with “an innate goodness.” Kutcher described Masterson as a “role model” and an “extraordinarily honest and intentional human being,” who “set an extraordinary standard around how you treat people … always treating people with decency, equality, and generosity.”
When their letters prompted a backlash on the internet, the couple issued a stilted and hollow Instagram-video apology.
When the publication of their letters prompted a firestorm of backlash on the internet, the couple issued a stilted and hollow Instagram-video apology on Saturday. Kutcher said the couple’s letters “were intended for the judge to read and not to undermine the testimony of the victims or retraumatize them in any way. We would never want to do that and we’re sorry if that has taken place.”
“We support victims,” Kunis said in that video. Sadly, their letters suggest otherwise.
In fact, those letters reflect a deeply pernicious logic about abusers that allows most of them to operate with impunity. The letters rely on binaristic framings of abusers, whereby they are all or mostly “good” and made a few “bad decisions” (see: Kunis’ use of “innate goodness”); or they are all or mostly bad and beyond redemption. But that’s precisely the logic that discourages people from accepting that a person might be a good friend to one person and a violent rapist to another. It’s also the logic that allows rapists and other abusers to get free passes.
On May 31, a Los Angeles jury found Masterson guilty of drugging and violently raping two women between 2001 and 2003. A third woman accused him of raping her, but the jury deadlocked on her case. The impact of Masterson’s assaults were devastating; all three accusers reported losing relationships, the ability to work and the will to live. One woman reports being unable to sleep next to her husband. And each experienced harassment — one woman described being “terrorized” — after reporting the rapes. During her impact statement, one survivor said to Masterson, “Your heinous attack on me snuck its way through my body and my experiences so stealthily, hijacking the life I was building diligently for myself.”
Another survivor said that, years after the rape, Masterson arranged for the son of one of his friends to tell the survivor’s daughter that her mother is a liar and that Masterson never raped her, which she says prompted her child to ask, “Mommy, what is rape?” The third accuser, whose claims the jury deadlocked on, says she was in a relationship with Masterson and, in addition to accusing him of rape, she also described systematic emotional abuse she says he inflicted upon her.
On the other hand, we have Kutcher, who cited Masterson’s fundraising efforts for 9/11 firefighters and his approach to fatherhood to vouch for his character. Kutcher also cited an anecdote he says he witnessed in which Masterson came to the defense of a woman being “berated” by her boyfriend at a pizza parlor. In a sick twist of irony, Kutcher and Kunis cite what they call Masterson’s staunch opposition to drugs as a reflection of his good character and his positive influence on their lives. That argument ignores the fact that the jury had found that Masterson drugged the two women before he sexually assaulted them.
Binaristic moralism, such as that found in the couple’s nauseating and reprehensible letters, places precedence on many abusers’ perceived good and redemptive qualities over their iniquitous ones. This is a logic which is not lost on many abusers, who are often exceedingly charming to the outside world, both to protect themselves — making it harder for people to believe those being abused — and to lure victims. It’s a logic that makes it impossible for some to believe that seemingly charismatic and kind people are capable of horrific acts. Of course, context is relevant in some instances. In a theft case, it would be relevant if the defendant was a food insecure, single parent, who stole bread for their children. But with transgressions as violent and premeditated as Masterson’s, the context Kutcher and Kunis offer is not relevant. Being a good father or friend does not in any way lessen the impacts of such heinous crimes, nor does it mean he didn’t commit them. It’s a logic that makes it impossible for some to believe that seemingly charismatic and kind people are capable of horrific acts. After Kutcher and Kunis released their cringeworthy apology, actor Christina Ricci posted an Instagram story which appeared to be a response to them. ”Sometimes people we loved and admired do horrible things,” she wrote. “They might not do these things to us and we only know who they were to us but that doesn’t mean they didn’t do the horrible things and to discredit the abused is a crime.” Ricci continued: “Unfortunately I’ve known lots of ‘awesome guys’ who were lovely to me who have been proven to be abusers privately. I’ve also had personal experience with this. Believe victims. It’s not easy to come forward. It’s not easy to get a conviction.” She’s right. Masterson was convicted this year of rapes that occurred around 20 years ago or more. At a trial that ended in November, a jury announced that it was hopelessly deadlocked. Statutes of limitation, fear of retaliation, having their credibility questioned, and not wanting to be retraumatized all deter survivors from coming forward. And, crucially, letters like Kutcher’s and Kunis’ reinforce a pernicious paradigm, whereby violent abusers are in some ways vindicated because they were nice to some of the people they didn’t abuse. Being a good friend to one person doesn’t mean you’re not a menace to another. And Kutcher and Kunis are among those who perpetuated a paradigm that’s a disservice to all survivors of abuse — and to the rest of society. They privileged the life of the abuser.
Noor Noman is a writer focused on culture, race and LGBTQ issues. 
