Sure we do. Movers, bank tellers, and many other occupantions with high risk to the client/employer require surety bonds. Ever seen “licensed, bonded, and insured” on a contractor truck?

Offloading risk to a firm specialized in managing it is precisely the point. The criminal justice system is just one instance - it’s a long lived and widespread form of insurance.

Bail long predates the existence of the police as we now know them.

I have a suspicion though that if you eliminated bail, what you'd end up doing would functionally be making all the bail bondsmen (who currently are limited in what they can do) disappear but suddenly create a need for a bunch more police (who have broader powers).

I don't know if that is really a positive tradeoff. I think the bail bondsmen are likely to have more repercussions if they just murder you, your family, and your dog in your house; the police can more or less do that with impunity in some places, de facto if not de jure.

> Bail long predates the existence of the police as we now know them.

OTOH, even most of the history of money bail didn't involve up front payment, it involved recognizances and sureties (pledges from either the accused or third parties, with the latter prohibited from profiting from the arrangement).

> I have a suspicion though that if you eliminated bail, what you'd end up doing would functionally be making all the bail bondsmen (who currently are limited in what they can do) disappear but suddenly create a need for a bunch more police (who have broader powers).

Since Washington, D.C., already did this for quite a while, why are speculating as if this hasn't been done?

> I don't understand how a bail is more motivating for someone to show up to trial than the threat of arrest with no bail.

In some cases it may remove a significant portion of the money the accused might flee with. In others, it can provide social constraints that are more binding than legal ones. For example, if your parents but their house (or a large portion of what the sale of it would net) up as collateral for your bail, you may be less inclined to flee if it would financially ruin them.

Still. If you are innocent, you might not be able to afford the bail and receive irrecoverable financial damage -- lose your job, insurance, etc. (Enter plea agreements...)

If you are guilty, I expect you actually don't want to end up in jail no matter the cost. Let us say you face 10 years in jail, you have actually committed the crime: what are the chances you think you will just take it one step further and ruin your family?

> If you are innocent, you might not be able to afford the bail and receive irrecoverable financial damage

Sure. I'm not making a case that bail is perfect, or even good overall, I'm just laying out some of the reasoning behind why it exists.

> Let us say you face 10 years in jail, you have actually committed the crime: what are the chances you think you will just take it one step further and ruin your family?

What are the chances that your friends and family don't understand this, and as such are unwilling to put up collateral as bail? It's not like the the accused get to put up other people's money and property without their say-so. The accused might con them into paying the bail, but really, there's only so much you can do in a case like that. If you could solve that scenario, you could probably eliminate confidence crimes altogether.

> I don't understand how a bail is more motivating for someone to show up to trial than the threat of arrest with no bail.

As I understand it, bail on bond is an old concept. Imagine rich landlord from movie universe Wild West. Their power comes from wealth (which comes from land) and being free. If they are detained for the period of trial, then someone will take over the land and they lose the power. If they are bailed on bond and fail to show up for trial, the land is seized by government and they again lose the power. Being free (getting bailed) and keeping the wealth (showing up for trial) is the winning move for the landlord, therefore they are strongly incentivised to appear for trial.

Of course the person in question must have a lot to lose (social status, wealth, etc.) for bail on bond to work. For the outcast beggar jail is arguably a better place than open streets. The rich™ have their wealth diversified so much, that it would be difficult to seize significant portion of their wealth.

> We don't have people pre-pay to not commit other crimes, why does specifically this one get it?

As I understand it, bail on bond is not about committing other crimes (while this is a nice side effect) but about appearing for trial.

> Seems to me like it just privatized part of the justice system - instead of cops chasing down delinquent criminals, it's bail bondsmen.

As others have noted, bail bondsmen essentially operate "risk management" business and offloading the risk assessment from court to bail bondsmen is one of the points.