羈押是干預人身自由最大之強制處分。我國為確保被告權利及訴訟程序順利進行，並達成羈押目的，特別制定羈押法。羈押雖拘束被告人身自由，但被告不應被剝奪有權利即有救濟的法治國保障。為此，現行《羈押法》第102條可視為看守所人權史的里程碑，賦予被告對看守所管理處遇亦享有憲法訴訟權保障。《羈押法》第102條共有6項，結構略顯複雜，其第1項至第3項屬刑事訴訟救濟，第4項至第6項屬行政訴訟救濟，採取權利救濟分流模式。本文研究認為，《羈押法》第102條形式上似乎保障了被告訴訟救濟權，但運作上，卻可能導致司法有限資源被無意義消耗，也可能暗藏審判權衝突。將來若有修法契機，建議放棄訴訟救濟分流模式，改採刑事法院一體性管轄。

Detention represents the most intrusive compulsory measure against personal liberty. To safeguard the rights of the accused, ensure the smooth progress of proceedings, and fulfill the underlying objectives of detention, Taiwan has enacted the Detention Act. While detention inherently restricts physical freedom, it must not deprive the accused of the fundamental guarantee of the rule of law–namely, ubi jus ibi remedium (where there is a right, there is a remedy). In this regard, Article 102 of the current Detention Act marks a milestone in the history of human rights within custodial institutions, extending constitutional protection of litigation rights to defendants challenging their treatment in detention.<br>Article 102 comprises six paragraphs with a complex structure: Paragraphs 1 to 3 pertain to criminal procedure remedies, while Paragraphs 4 to 6 fall under administrative litigation, thereby establishing a“bifurcated relief model.”This article argues that while Article 102 formally safeguards the right to judicial remedy, its practical application may lead to the redundant consumption of limited judicial resources and latent conflicts of jurisdiction. Should future legislative amendments arise, this paper recommends abandoning the bifurcation model in favor of a unified jurisdiction centered within the criminal courts.