EDITORIAL: More diligence is needed

We were startled to read the headline across the front page of Thursday's Aiken Standard: "Murder suspect arrested for fifth time since bonding out."

What? Freddie Lee Simpkins, 22, has been charged with murder in a drug-related shooting, he gets out on bond while he awaits trial, yet he is arrested five more times for violations such as grand larceny, simple larceny, simple possession of marijuana and burglary second degree.

On the surface it seems like the system failed. Why wouldn't his bond for the murder charge be revoked the first time he committed a crime? What we've found out is that it isn't that simple.

In South Carolina, bond for those particular subsequent charges are usually be set by a magistrate judge. The judge considering bond is supposed to consider whether the person is a flight risk or a danger to society based on prior convictions and the charge at hand. Typically, charges against the individual that have not yet been resolved are not considered when setting bond. None of the charges, including the murder charge, have been resolved.

However, most of us consider anyone who enters our home, even during the day at a time no one is at home, and takes a television set, to be a danger to society.

OK, so he hadn't been convicted of a violent crime, but authorities keep charging him with crimes. So isn't it in the interest of public safety to take away his bond on the murder charge?

Last week, the Solicitor's Office filed a motion to have his bond revoked.

"It is just one of those deals where he won't stay out of trouble, and if he won't stay out of trouble, then we move to get his bond revoked," Assistant Solicitor David Miller said.

That's certainly a step in the right direction, especially since one of the conditions of bond is that the defendant stay out of trouble while awaiting trial.

The Solicitor's Office acted quickly after attention was focused on this case. We hope in the future all the court officials involved in murder and other violent crimes cases be more aggressive when considering whether or not a defendant should be allowed to stay free while awaiting trial.