In many areas, part of the licensing for bail bonds doesn't require the bondsman to front the entire bail. They're basically given credit by the court that it will only become due if you fail to appear (and then there's the whole skip tracing aspect). Whereas you as a private citizen have to front the entire amount.
Now how that's figured at the back end (escrow of a general fund, or 'proof of ability to pay' or just 'sure, why not') is indicative of this being just one part of the racket. Why is a bail bondsman allowed to just promise the court they'll pay if you fail to appear, but you are given no such leeway, despite, in theory, being innocent at that point?
Probably for the same kind of reason that people can take out life-insurance policies on themselves much more easily than on others.
The court assumes that the bail bondsman's incentive for you to skip town is non-existent, whereas your incentive to skip town is, statistically speaking, much higher.
Now how that's figured at the back end (escrow of a general fund, or 'proof of ability to pay' or just 'sure, why not') is indicative of this being just one part of the racket. Why is a bail bondsman allowed to just promise the court they'll pay if you fail to appear, but you are given no such leeway, despite, in theory, being innocent at that point?