In Psychology, one of the essential experiments in consistent discussion is the Stanford Prison Experiment. In the Stanford Prison Experiment, a group of students were assigned to roles as either correctional officers or prisoners to test the effect of being given authority on behavior within the realm. As expected, the group of “correctional officers” took significant advantage of their given authority and punished and abused the “prisoners” who were, in actuality, a group of their peers. In 2016, a judge in the judicial system of California tried an entirely new "experiment" with Stanford students. Judge Aaron Persky, in the case of a Stanford student who sexually assaulted an unconscious, intoxicated woman behind a dumpster, severely overstepped his given authority with his incredibly lenient sentencing of the assailant, Brock Turner. Judge Persky is conducting an “experiment” on the effects of jail time for a student-athlete at the cost of severe emotional damage to the woman the student assaulted, he is conducting an “experiment” to attempt to preserve the right of pursuit of happiness for a sexual assailant at the cost of happiness of the woman whom he assaulted and her family, and probably most importantly, he is conducting an “experiment” that could set precedent for judges in the future to act similarly and encourage future assault under the guise of “special circumstance”. This judge, who is meant to be an individual who interprets the law, was willing to undermine the destructive nature of sexual assault by giving a sentence five and a half years shorter than the recommendation of the prosecution sending a message to women everywhere that they can be unconscious and defenseless, but the person who assaulted them shouldn’t be punished for his reckless and ruinous behavior simply because jail time “would have a severe impact on him”.

Turner’s case does not disturb me in terms of legality; Judge Persky was well within the bounds of the law when he sentenced Turner to a six-month prison sentence. Judge Persky has the right to reduce the sentence in a crime of this type in consideration of “special circumstance”. The question is: what about the case of Brock Turner constitutes a special circumstance? Did the special circumstance concern Brock Turner being a Stanford student and Judge Persky being a Stanford graduate? Did the special circumstance concern Turner’s status as a successful athlete? Is your status as a male at a popular, renowned institution enough to excuse clearly heinous behavior? Judge Persky’s “severe impact” explanation constitutes no more of a special circumstance than if the judge were simply to say “jail would be no fun”. The supposed purpose of the American penal system is for jail to have a severe impact on the prisoner so that the individual will not be motivated to commit the crime again. Jail is supposed to be the severe impact brought about as punishment for severe illegal action, such as that committed by Brock Turner. Although Judge Persky operated within legality, the American justice system is built firmly on the premise that judges have a responsibility to work within the law but to also exercise a level of morality when making decisions. Judge Persky’s morality has to be questioned when he gives a sentence two and a half years below a median between the sentences recommended by the prosecution and the defendant with the purpose of protecting the assailant over the assaulted.

This is why I question the “experiment” that Judge Persky is putting forth. Many believe that the Stanford Prison Experiment operated on the other side of ethical rightness because the students assigned the role of prisoner were punished purely because of their role in the experiment. I contend that Judge Persky is putting forth an “experiment” of his own but not one that tests authority at least in the physical sense. Judge Persky is experimenting with the level of ethics needed to be applied as a result of the law, an experiment that could be fatal to every victim who faces a court case without a jury. “Where does the precedent of ‘special circumstance’ stand” was Judge Persky’s research question and to this moment, his hypothesis stating that “special circumstance” can be whatever the judge decides has held strong. My only hope is that victims of rape and sexual assault are not those who have to suffer due to this new prison experiment.