鑑定留置屬於一種限制人身自由之強制處分，本文將以其與其他限制人身自由之強制處分，如羈押、預防性羈押及暫行安置，比較及分析這幾種強制處分之異同。同時，以實務判決為研究重心，分別對身體鑑定留置有無存在必要、鑑定留置有無特定醫院及鑑定留置有無縮短可能，探討鑑定留置制度施行 20 年皆未修法，是否有必要進行修法。本文將以理論與判決分析的角度，與其他限制人身自由之強制處分比較，探討鑑定留置制度施行至今之缺失。
對於文中判決研究，以目前實務上面臨的問題，以多種關鍵詞進行檢索，檢視鑑定留置實施近二十年中所面臨的缺失，及是否可以不適用到鑑定留置，此侵害人民基本權較嚴重之制度，以其他制度或方法替代，故於本文文末，提出對於鑑定留置制度之建議。
The detention for expert examination is a form of compulsory measure that restricts personal freedom. This article will compare and analyze its similarities and differences with other compulsory measures that restrict personal freedom, such as detention, preventive detention, and provisional placement. Focusing on practical judgments, the study examines the necessity of the physical identification detention, the requirement for a specific hospital in identification detention, and the possibility of shortening the dentification detention. It explores whether there is a need to amend the identification detention system, which has been in place for 20 years without modification. From a theoretical and judgment analysis perspective, the article discusses the shortcomings of the identification detention system compared to other forms of compulsory measures that restrict personal freedom.
In the research on judgments in the article, various keywords are used to search for problems faced in current practice. It examines the deficiencies encountered during the implementation of identification detention over the past two decades and explores whether alternative systems or methods with less infringement on basic rights can replace identification detention. Therefore, at the end of this article, recommendations for the identification detention system are proposed.
