I wasn't sure whether to post this to this sub or AskScience, but I figured it was more a history question than a psychology one.

I was listening to a TED podcast that talked about the Stanford Prison Experiment, and I found it very unnerving that there was no mention of why Philip Zimbardo did not face any kind of criminal charges or any other repercussions for his role in this event. A quick Google search didn't bring much up either, all I could really find was Zimbardo talking about how shocked he was about the outcome, as though he himself was also the victim of his own experiment--which is true to an extent, but sidesteps the larger issue of him being responsible for perpetrating extreme psychological torture on test subjects.

Am I missing something here? How was he even allowed to work in the field of psychology after this, let alone make a career out of it? I understand that ethics were very different in the 70s, and that there is a long history of unethical human psychological testing, but don't these researchers ever have to answer for their actions?