臺灣刑事訴訟法中關於重罪羈押之規定，近來被部分人士批評違反無罪推定、比例原則及武器平等原則，並據以聲請大法官解釋；惟經進一步剖析，此種論點似是而非，事實上，臺灣重罪羈押規定之初，業經立法考量相關問題而予以肯認，且世界先進國家為平衡追求公共利益，以預防再犯或防止被告逃亡串證，有些直接立法明文列舉可為羈押原因之重罪類型，有些則在法院實務操作上，以「愈是涉犯重罪之人，其逃亡可能愈高」之經驗法則為基礎，推定有逃亡串證之危險而予以羈押，是重罪羈押違憲之說，不無誤解。
另外，審判中檢察官對於被告有無聲請羈押權及對羈押准駁提起抗告之權？各方論點不一，惟基於權力分立原則等考量，似無否定之理，否則無異形同允許握有羈押准駁大權的法官可以隻手恣意濫權。

Nowadays there are a few arguments raised by some people that if the detention for felony criminals in the Taiwan's criminal procedure rules has violated the “presumption of innocence”, "proportion principle" and "equal combating” But after a further analysis, we concluded they might have misunderstood the rules. First, in fact, the detention rules have approved carefully by the Congress of Taiwan. Secondly, To protect public interests, some civilized countries enumerate the types of felony criminals for detention in their criminal procedure rules directly while some countries operate the experience rule, “it is more possible to flee away that people have committed felony”, in their courts to infer that the defendants are in danger of escaping or acting in collusion to make each other's statements and therefore their judges decide to detain the defendants.
In addition, considering on the basis of Principle of Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances, etc., public procurators should have the authorities to file motions to detain the defendants and also could appeal to higher court for a release or detention order in trail.