Definition
A court-ordered obligation requiring a person to provide a guarantee — typically in the form of a recognizance, with or without sureties — that they will conduct themselves peaceably and lawfully for a defined period. The person bound by the security pledges a sum of money that becomes forfeit if they commit a breach of the peace or other specified misconduct during the term. If the condition is satisfied, the obligation is discharged; if breached, the court may proceed to estreat the recognizance and impose further penalties.
Security for good behavior is related to, but broader than, security to keep the peace. Keeping the peace is directed at preventing violence or threats against specific persons; security for good behavior extends to general lawful conduct and may be required of persons whose character or past actions give the court reasonable grounds to apprehend future disorder — including vagrants, disorderly persons, those suspected of criminal intent, or persons bound over following a complaint by a private individual.
The mechanism works as follows: a magistrate or court, upon sufficient cause shown, binds the subject to appear and to enter into a recognizance (their own bond, typically with one or more sureties) in a stated sum, conditioned on good behavior for a fixed term. Failure to find sureties may result in commitment until the recognizance is entered.
Common Confusion
SECURITY FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR vs. SURETY OF THE PEACE: These terms are often used interchangeably in older sources, but they carry distinct scope. Surety of the peace (or security to keep the peace) is narrower — it responds to a specific threatened breach, typically upon complaint by a person who fears injury from the subject. Security for good behavior is broader in application and may be imposed on classes of persons (disorderly persons, those of ill repute) without a specific complainant. Researchers encountering either term in historical sources should check which obligation is actually imposed before treating the terms as equivalent.
SECURITY FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR vs. BAIL: Both involve a recognizance and sureties, and both are conditioned obligations. Bail is tied to appearance at a specific criminal proceeding. Security for good behavior is a preventive, not a procedural, mechanism — it does not presuppose a pending charge and is not discharged by appearance in court.
Why It Matters in Research
This term sits at the intersection of criminal procedure, magistrates' jurisdiction, and preventive justice — a category that historical sources treat unevenly. Several navigational points matter:
First, corpus searches will turn up this term almost exclusively in older materials. The phrase "security for good behavior" is largely archaic in American practice, having been substantially absorbed into modern statutory frameworks governing recognizances, probation conditions, and peace bonds. A researcher finding the term in 19th-century American or English sources is in the domain of magistrates' practice and common law preventive jurisdiction, not modern criminal procedure.
Second, the Rapalje & Lawrence entry cross-references ARTICLES OF THE PEACE, BREACH OF THE PEACE, and RECOGNIZANCE (§ 24). These cross-references are the correct research path. The substantive law governing this obligation lived primarily in the recognizance framework; the articles of the peace supplied the procedural mechanism for compelling the security. Researchers should not expect a stand-alone doctrine — the term is a label for an application of recognizance practice.
Third, jurisdictional divergence in the historical record is significant. English practice under justices of the peace was codified and elaborated extensively; American colonial and early republican practice adopted the institution but with varying statutory modifications by state. What counted as sufficient grounds for requiring the security, who could demand it, and what conduct constituted a breach differed across jurisdictions and periods.
Fourth, the condition attached to the recognizance — "good behavior" — was itself a contested phrase. Courts and commentators debated whether an indictable offense was required to forfeit the bond, or whether lesser misconduct sufficed. This interpretive uncertainty is not always flagged in brief historical dictionary entries, but it matters for understanding how the obligation functioned in practice.
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence treat SECURITY FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR as a term of reference rather than a term of substance, directing the researcher immediately to ARTICLES OF THE PEACE, BREACH OF THE PEACE, and RECOGNIZANCE § 24. This editorial choice is itself informative: the compilers understood the concept as derivative — its meaning was constituted by the law of recognizances and the procedural law of the peace, not by any independent doctrinal content.
The citation pattern in Rapalje & Lawrence (English chancery and common law reporters) reflects the English roots of the institution. American lawyers and judges of the 19th century generally worked from Blackstone's Commentaries (Book IV) and from local magistrates' handbooks that adapted English practice to state statutory frameworks. Researchers relying solely on Rapalje & Lawrence for the substantive law of this obligation will find the entry a starting point only — the real content is in the recognizance entries and in the peace jurisdiction literature that the dictionary does not itself reproduce.
Historical dictionaries generally do not flag the tension between the institution's preventive character and constitutional concerns about pretrial liberty that became more prominent in 20th-century American law. This gap is significant: what appeared as routine magistrates' practice in 1880 looks quite different through the lens of due process doctrine developed after that period.
Jurisdictional Note
English law gave justices of the peace broad statutory authority to require security for good behavior; American states varied considerably in codifying or limiting this power. Some states retained recognizance-based peace bonds into the 20th century under various names; others folded analogous authority into probation or conditional discharge statutes. Researchers should not assume that English common law rules transferred wholesale to any particular American jurisdiction.