对于现实发生的刑事司法改革试点，有人赞同，有人反对。试点评价分歧背后隐藏着刑事司法改革试点的合法性问题，即试点作为刑事司法改革方法的可接受度和正当性问题，并不局限于是否逾越现行法规定的合法/非法问题。合法性与公众的认同度相关，面临合法性质疑的改革方法会使改革背离其设计初衷，丧失了合法性的司法改革将导致整个法治体系的崩塌。故此，以“良性违法”为试点做开脱显得过于轻率。不解决合法性的问题，刑事司法改革试点无疑是在碰运气。 价值认识的前提是事实认识，试点现象可以通过试点概貌比较直观地反映出来。试点概貌是对试点现象的外观性描述，借助社会学研究中属性和变量分析法，可以对试点样本所包含的庞杂信息进行处理。以各独立的刑事司法改革试点样本为介质，通过属性归纳，可以提炼出的变量主要有：试点主体、动因、方法、内容、争议、效果等。试点概貌显示了刑事司法改革试点变量和属性的多样性和复杂性，为研究的方便，可简约为试点的模式——实践型、研究型和混合型。 评价是相对于事实认识的价值认识，历时性地考察对刑事司法改革试点的评价，基本上可以分为质疑说和赞同说。基于理由的差异又有派别的区分。各派观点的立论基础虽不尽相同，但争论的深层次问题是试点的合法性或正当性。从认识论的角度出发，产生评价分歧主要有两点原因——评价事实和评价标准。就试点分歧来看，关键是评价标准不统一。 试点评价标准建筑于试点合法性的基础理论之上。基于正当性角度的合法性问题是哲学、政治学、法学、社会学等多学科领域的话题。合法性的研究范式一般可以划分为经验主义、规范主义和重建式的程序主义。刑事司法改革试点合法性的基础理论和合法化路径也蕴含其中，有待挖掘和梳理。 为解决试点作为刑事司法改革方式正当性的争议，形式/实质二维标准一直以来是较具影响力的判断试点合法性标准，它们脱胎于经验主义和规范主义合法性研究范式，但在解决试点合法化问题上已显得力不从心。放弃二维对立评价模式，以程序主义的一维模式重新确立讨论试点合法性的框架是新的理论尝试。 程序主义是处于多元“价值博弈”中的合法性生存之道，它诉诸于程序，但不放弃价值，兼有形式性与实质性。程序主义的实质性与实质合法性并非同一所指。程序主义的实质性不认同优位价值，承认刑事司法改革试点现象处于多元价值语境，比如摸着石头过河与顶层设计、立法推进主义与司法推进主义、制度生长与程序法定。这些价值理念具有多元性和平等性，研究的目的并不是要通过介评分出高下，而是要将它们尽可能地输入到论辩程序中，进行持续的沟通协调。同时，程序主义试点的形式性也与以往形式合法性研究的旨趣不同，程序主义的形式性既不回避试点逾越现行法律的现实问题，也不诉诸“良性违法”得以解脱，而是谋求通过试点制度的程序化，实现试点的合法化。 程序主义主张商谈的平等性、无强制性、开放性，但同时也主张应对商谈进行程序控制，以避免商谈的持久化。试点程序是诉讼程序和立法程序之外，应对刑事法律变迁需求的装置，是实现试点合法化的辩论平台。遵循程序原理，试点程序首先应具备基本程序要素，进而通过运行机制设计，如启动——交流反馈——评估等，推动静态程序要素的动态运作，以实现预设的各项程序功能。这种以法律程序出现的商谈民主程序可以被理解为确保理想商谈条件的建制化。虽然经由程序的试点难以进行实证化的合法性效度检测，但程序主义合法性的基础理论以及试点程序本身所具有的功能，可以在一定程度上解释试点合法性产生的理据。

When it comes to the pilot in the criminal justice reform, somebody may approve, and the other may oppose. What hidden behind different pilot evaluations is the problem of the legitimacy of the pilot in criminal justice reform, which means the acceptability and legitimacy of the pilot as a mode of criminal justice reform, not the problem whether the pilot is illegal or not. Legitimacy concerns with public recognition. A reform plan facing challenge of the legitimacy will make the reform itself deviate from its original design, and the judicial reform losing legitimacy will lead to the collapse of the entire system of the rule of law. Therefore, taking the “virtuous illegal” as an excuse of the pilot seems too hasty. If we don’t solve the problem of the pilot legitimacy, criminal justice reform just depends on luck.The fact cognition is the premise of the value cognition. Pilot phenomenon can be reflected intuitively by a general introduction to the pilot profile. The pilot profile is a description to the appearance of the pilot phenomenon, which can deal with the complex information in the pilot samples with the aid of sociological research method of quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis. Taking every independent criminal justice reform pilot sample as medium, we, through the attribute induction, can extract some variables as following: pilot subject, motion, method, content, controversy and effect. Pilot profile shows the diversity and complexity of the variables and attributes of the criminal justice reform pilot. For the convenience of the research, we can divide pilot as three modes—practice type, test type and mixed type.Evaluation is the value understanding of the fact. The evaluation of pilot in criminal justice can be simply divided as questioned style and approved style. We can also make further division of the two styles based on different reasons. Though there are different theory basis, but the substantive issue is the legitimacy of the pilot. From the perspective of the epistemology, different evaluations generate from two aspects: the facts evaluated and the standard used. As the different opinions on the pilot, the critical problem is lack of uniform standard.The evaluation criterion of the pilot is based on the basic theory of pilot legitimacy. The legality issue based on the legitimacy issue is the topic in philosophy, political science, law, sociology and many other disciplines. The research paradigm of legitimacy can generally be divided into empiricism paradigm, normative paradigm and reconstruction procedure paradigm. The basic theory and the legalization path of the legitimacy of the pilot in criminal justice reform, which is contained in different paradigms, are still to be excavated and comb.In order to solve the dispute of the legitimacy of the pilot, the two dimensional standard of formative/substantive, which generates from empiricism paradigm and normative paradigm, but now appears to be inadequate to solve the issue of legitimacy of pilot, has been a more influential standard to judge legitimacy of pilot. Thus, make use of procedural legitimacy theory to rebuild theoretical framework of the discussion of pilot legitimacy is a totally theoretical attempt.Procedural legitimacy theory is the survival road for legitimacy in the multivariate value game. It resorts to process, but doesn’t give up value, so it contains both formality and substantiveness. The essentiality of the proceduralism is not the same as the substantive legitimacy of the proceduralism, which doesn’t accept value priority, but admit that the criminal justice reform pilot is in multi value context, such as feeling stone to cross river and top design, legislation promotion and justice promotion and so on. These values are of diversity and equality. The purpose of research is not to distinguish good or bad, but to introduce them to the debate procedure as possible as we can so as to continue communication and coordination. The purpose of study on formality of proceduralism pilot is different from other previous study on legitimacy, which neither avoids the current problems of lawbreaking of pilot, nor resorts to breaking laws with good faith to justify. It seeks to make pilot legalization through promoting proceduralization of pilot. Proceduralism advocates to equality, non-mandatory, openness of the discussion, also insist on procedural control to discussion to avoid persistent talks. Besides the criminal procedure and the legislative procedure, pilot is a respondent device of the changing requirement of criminal law, and a debate platform for realizing pilot legal. Following the procedural principle, the pilot procedure should first have basic procedural elements, and then promote the dynamic operation of static program elements by designing the running mechanism, such as start—exchange feedback—assessment and so on to realize the preset function of procedure. The democratic discussion procedure, which appears as proceeding, can be understood as institutionalization to ensure ideal discuss conditions. Although it is difficult to make empirical test on validity of legitimacy through the pilot on procedure, but the basic theory of the proceduralism legitimacy and the function of the pilot procedure itself, can make an explanation for pilot legitimacy in a certain extent.