刑事被告是否應予羈押，《刑事訴訟法》雖有明文之規定，但仍' 有極大之裁量空間。當追求實體虞實與未定罪被告人權陷於兩難時， 羈押與否之裁定即須審慎爲之。鑑於社會判斷理論（Social Judgment Theory, SJT)可有效釐清利害關係人間認知衝突的來源，本硏究因此 採用SJT爲理論架構，並輔以深度訪談，對法官與其他法庭角色就羈 押裁定之認知進行探討。硏究結果顯示，多數受訪者對羈押與具保的 裁定在法定要件中最依賴「所犯罪名之輕重」與「犯罪嫌疑程度」等 兩項線索，但法宫對羈押替代手段與羈押中無罪推定的觀點、被告個人的因素，甚至社會輿論均可能影響羈押的准駁與保釋金額，因此， 法官考量羈押與否的因素遠較法定要件爲多，而具保金額的決定則欠缺可參考的標準，進而影響羈押與具保等兩種裁定的可預測性》

The Code of Criminal Procedure has regulations about the conditions concerning proclaimed detention of the accused, but there is room for discretion. When facing dilemma of finding substantial authenticity or considering the human rights of the accused at the investigation stage, the determination about detaining or not must be scrupulous. Social Judgment Theory (SJT) can be used to realize the source of the cognitive conflict among stakeholders. This study adopts SJT as the theoretical framework, incorporating in-depth interviews, to explore the cognition of detention of judges and other roles in courts. The results show that most interviewees mainly rely on two elements in the law—suspicion and accusation of having committed an offense. But the judges’ views of presumption of innocence and the substitute means of detaining, the accused’s personal factors, and even the public opinion may influence the decisions of detention and bail. Therefore, factors about detention that judges consider are much more than what listed in law. The decision about the amount of bail is lack of reference. These matters will influence the predictability of the ruling of detention and bail.