刑事訴訟法以發現真實，進而追求正義為主要目的，惟仍不得偏廢透過踐行井然有序之程序，達到保障被告基本權利之要求。對此，羈押作為有罪判決確定前，對被告人身自由所為最激烈尖銳與不可逆轉之暫時性刑事程序基本權干預處分，位處發現真實與保障基本權利間之緊張領域。因此，羈押發動前，首要之務應係思考何種羈押目的始為適當，並藉由確立羈押之目的，用以限制國家恣意發動羈押，最終達到避免濫用之效果。另一方面，無罪推定原則不僅係貫穿憲法與刑事訴訟法之重要法律原則之一，同時多數民主國家與人權公約亦廣泛承認其為普世價值。對此，本文首先討論關於無罪推定原則之各種學說與實務見解，分析其意義、內容、法律效果與對被告在刑事程序中之影響，並嘗試找出無罪推定原則相對明確並具可操作性之審查標準；再者，藉由上述審查標準，重新檢視刑事訴訟法第101條第1項所稱「追訴、審判或執行」作為羈押目的是否妥適，並進一步審查各該明定之羈押理由是否符合前揭目的；此外，從德國法與歐洲人權公約第6條之比較觀點切入，通盤檢討刑事訴訟法中有關羈押的用語是否恰當，並區分羈押與保全拘禁的差異，同時討論防逃機制；最後，總結全文並提出立法建議。

The main purpose of the Criminal Procedure Law is to the discovery of truth and to pursue justice, but it must not neglect the requirement of protecting the Fundamental Rights of the Accused through the practice orderly procedures. In this regard, the detention is the most drastic and irreversible interference of fundamental rights with the defendant’s right to personal freedom before a definitive judgement, is located in a tense area between the discovery of truth and the protection of Fundamental Rights. Therefore, before the detention is initiated, the first priority we should consider what is the appropriate purpose of the detention, and by the purpose of the detention of confirmation, it can be used to limit the state’s arbitrary use of the detention and ultimately achieve to avoid the effect of abuse. Second, the Principle of Presumption of Innocence is not only one of the most important legal principles that governs the Constitution and Criminal Procedure Law, but is also widely recognized as a universal value by most democratic countries and human rights conventions. In this regard, this article first discusses the various legal doctrines and judgment, opinion of the court, analyzing its the legal meaning, content, effects, and impact on the defendant in the criminal process, and try to find the Principle of Presumption of Innocence is the relatively clear and operable standard of review. In addition, the above standard of review is used to re-examine the appropriateness of “prosecution, trial, or execution” as the purpose of the detention under the Article 101 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Law, and further examine whether each of the specified grounds for the detention is consistent with the foregoing purposes. Furthermore, a comprehensive review of the appropriateness of the terminology used in the Criminal Procedure Law regarding detention, distinguishing the difference between the detention and the security detention, and the system of escape prevention is discussed from German Criminal Procedure Law and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights perspective. In summary, the article has proposed concrete legislative suggestions for the legislators.