with the traditional right to freedom pending trial. In order to reconcile these conflicting interests, therefore, his release on bail is conditioned upon his giving reasonable assurance in one form or another that he will appear at a certain time to stand trial. In this regard, the Supreme Court has remarked: "Like the ancient practice of securing the oaths of responsible persons to stand as sureties for the accused, the modern practice or requiring a bail bond or the deposit of a sum of money subject to forfeiture serves as anadditional assurance of the presence of the accused." Modern statutes, which regulate bail procedure in detail today and vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, provide that an accused may be set at liberty pending trial in several ways. For example, he might be released without security by agreeing in writing to appear at a specified time and place, i.e., on "his own recognizance"; or he may execute a bond with a deposit of cash or securities in an amount equal to or less than the face amount of the bond; or he may execute a bail bond which requires one or more sureties. A bail bond, with sureties, is essentially a contract between the government on the one side and the accused and hissureties on the other. Under the contract the accused is released into the custody of thesureties on their promise to pay the government a stated sum of money if the accusedfails to appear before the court in accordance with its terms. Historically, the contract ofbail, traced to a gradual increase of faith in the honor of a hostage and the consequent relaxation of actual imprisonment, constitutes one of the first appearances of theconcept of contract in our law. The early contract of bail differed from the modern bailbond in its mode of execution as it was simply a solemn admission of liability by thesureties made in the presence of an officer authorized to take it. No signatures of the bailwas required, and it was not necessary f...
