Last month, Frank Sterling was exonerated by DNA evidence after being incarcerated 18 years for a crime he did not commit. Sterling was wrongfully convicted of murdering an elderly woman in Rochester, New York in 1988. His conviction was based entirely on a false confession. In the meantime the actual killer remained free, and six years later he murdered four-year-old Kali Poulton. This tragedy leaves no question that addressing the flaws in our criminal justice system that lead to wrongful convictions is a public safety imperative.

Why would anyone confess to a crime they did not commit? What would it take to get you to confess to a crime? Most people find it hard to understand how anyone could ever confess to a crime they did not commit. But it happens over and over again. Last week, two major newspapers highlighted two different cases where the confessions of the defendants had been called into question.

Last night, as the Texas House of Representatives hit the deadline to consider Senate bills, the state lost the opportunity to act on a host of important legislative initiatives, including several significant criminal justice reform bills. A partisan meltdown over a bill requiring photo identification for voters led to parliamentary maneuvering and delay. SB 116 and SB 117 would have demonstrated Texas’s increasing commitment to a more fair and accurate criminal justice system. Instead, these bills now represent two missed opportunities for justice in Texas.