（二）我们应该将划分模式与探求共性结合起来，科学地进行比较研究
两种进路（划分模式和探求共性）都有明显价值评价的痕迹。前者夸大了差异，后者有意地忽视某些差异。两者都尝试着将读者从烦琐的细节中解放出来，即“清除灌木，从而看到纯然美丽的森林全貌。”[32]在用粗毛刷子绘制的刑事诉讼法图景上，大量细节被径直省略掉。当然，在比较法中保持完全的价值中立和描述客观是不现实的，因为比较本身就具有评价的性质，那么我们只能寻求最大程度地减少价值评价和偏颇认识。划分模式或探求共性都不是绝对科学的进路，只有将两者结合运用，方可贴近科学，最大限度地增进不同法域间的相互理解。具体而言，划分模式往往有助于我们去了解各法域刑事诉讼法所处的政治、文化背景，不至于满足于它们表面上的相似；在探求共性的原则指引下，我们又可以运用既定的分析网格，从而跳出法域的限定，进行一般性的功能比较，从而促进不同法域间的司法合作与刑事诉讼程序国际准则的确立。
总之，我们需要在寻求共识的基础上存异，因为各法域刑事诉讼法所栖身的政治、文化土壤有所不同；在承认差异的基础上探求普适性的准则，因为各法域刑事诉讼法具有相似的功能，它们在全球化以及普适人权的影响下还将进一步趋同。只有将划分模式和探求共性结合起来，我们才能实现相互理解的刑事诉讼法比较，使得这种比较不仅仅服务于法律借鉴、移植，更成为沟通不同法域智识，促进国际刑事司法合作和统一刑事诉讼国际秩序的桥梁。
【作者简介】
印波，单位为北京师范大学法学院。
【注释】程味秋：《两大法系刑事诉讼模式之比较》，载《比较法研究》1997年第2期。
Herbert L．Packer，Two Models of the Criminal Process，University of Pennsylvania Law Review，November，1964，p．7．
达马斯卡在1986年撰写的著作《司法和国家权力的多种面孔》中创立的冲突解决模式（conflict－solving model）和政策执行模式（policy－implementing model）系上述两组模式的延伸，本文因此也不作讨论。Mirjan R．Damaska，The Faces of Justice and State Authority，Yale University Press，1986．
Mirjan R．Damaka，Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure：A Comparative Study，University of Pennsylvania Law Review，January，1973，pp．507－589．
Mirjan R．Damaka，Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure：A Comparative Study，University of Pennsylvania Law Review，January，1973，pp．507－589．这两种模式系统的总结，还可参见Peter Duff，Disclosure in Scottish Criminal Procedure：AnotherStep in an Inquisitorial Direction？International Journal of Evidence and Proof，July，2007，pp．154－155．
Mirjan R．Damaka，Structures of Authority and Comparative Criminal Procedure，The Yale Law Journal，January，1975，pp．480－544．
Mirjan R．Damaka，Structures of Authority and Comparative Criminal Procedure，The Yale Law Journal，January，1975，pp．480－544．
John Jackson＆Máximo Langer，Introduction：Damaka and Comparative Law，in John Jackson，Máximo Langer＆Peter Tillers eds．，Crime，Procedure and Evidence in a Comparative and International Context：Essays in Honour of Professor Mirjan Damaka，Hart Publishing，2008，p．1．
Mirjan R．Damaka，Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure：A Comparative Study，University of Pennsylvania Law Review，January，1973，pp．538－540，562，566，577；Mirjan R．Damaka，Structures of Authority and Comparative Criminal Procedure，The Yale Law Journal，January，1975，pp．481－483，486，494，511，523，527．
Mirjan R．Damaka，Structures of Authority and Comparative Criminal Procedure，The Yale Law Journal，January，1975，pp．486，511；Max Weber，Economy and Society，University of California Press，1978．
Peter Duff，Disclosure in Scottish Criminal Procedure：Another Step in an Inquisitorial Direction？International Journal of Evidence and Proof，July，2007，p．155．
Mirjan R．Damaka，Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure：A Comparative Study，University of Pennsylvania Law Review，January，1973，p．577．
Edgar Bodenheimer，Jurisprudence：The Philosophy and Method of the Law，Harvard University Press，1962，p．289．
Peter de Cruz，Comparative Law in a Changing World，Cavendish，1995，p．46．
除了下文的分析，戴尔马斯·马蒂（Delmas－Marty）一直在致力于创设适用整个欧洲的刑事诉讼程序模板。由于她的研究多适用于欧洲，而不是普适性的，本文并不详细探讨她的研究。相关研究例见Mireille Delmas－Marty，Towards a European Model of the Criminal Trial，inMireille Delmas－Marty ed．，The Criminal Process and Human Rights：Towards a European Consciousness，Martinus Nijhoff，1995，pp．191－198．
Barton L．Ingraham，The Structure of Criminal Procedure：Laws and Practice of France，the Soviet Union，China，and the United States，Greenwood Press，1987，pp．17，19．
Barton L．Ingraham，The Structure of Criminal Procedure：Laws and Practice of France，the Soviet Union，China，and the United States，Greenwood Press，1987，p．21．
Hans－Heinrich Jescheck，Principles of German Criminal Procedure in Comparison with American Law，Virginia Law Review，March，1970，p．239．
Barton L．Ingraham，The Structure of Criminal Procedure：Laws and Practice of France，the Soviet Union，China，and the United States，Greenwood Press，1987，p．21．
Barton L．Ingraham，The Structure of Criminal Procedure：Laws and Practice of France，the Soviet Union，China，and the United States，Greenwood Press，1987，p．20．
Barton L．Ingraham，The Structure of Criminal Procedure：Laws and Practice of France，the Soviet Union，China，and the United States，Greenwood Press，1987，preface．
Christoph Safferling，Towards an International Criminal Procedure，Oxford University Press，2001，pp．2－5．
Barton L．Ingraham，The Structure of Criminal Procedure：Laws and Practice of France，the Soviet Union，China，and the United States，Greenwood Press，1987，p．19．
Barton L．Ingraham，The Structure of Criminal Procedure：Laws and Practice of France，the Soviet Union，China，and the United States，Greenwood Press，1987，p．118．
Barton L．Ingraham，The Structure of Criminal Procedure：Laws and Practice of France，the Soviet Union，China，and the United States，Greenwood Press，1987，p．19．
Richard O．Lempert，Anglo－American and Continental Systems：Marsupials and Mammals of the Law，in John Jackson，Máximo Langer＆Peter Tillers eds．，Crime，Procedure and Evidence in a Comparative and International Context：Essays in Honour of Professor Mirjan Damaka，Hart Publishing，2008，pp．395－414．
John Hatchard，Barbara Huber＆Richard Vogler eds．，Comparative Criminal Procedure，The British Institute of International and ComparativeLaw，1996，p．6．
Peter Duff，Disclosure in Scottish Criminal Procedure：Another Step in an Inquisitorial Direction？International Journal of Evidence and Proof，July，2007，p．155．
参见Richard Vogler，A World View of Criminal Justice，Ashgate，2005，p．3．
Barton L．Ingraham，The Structure of Criminal Procedure：Laws and Practice of France，the Soviet Union，China，and the United States，Greenwood Press，1987，p．118．
George F．Cole，Stanislaw J．Frankowski＆Marc G．Gertz eds．，Major Criminal Justice Systems：A Comparative Survey，Sage Publications，1987，p．8．
Barton L．Ingraham，The Structure of Criminal Procedure：Laws and Practice of France，the Soviet Union，China，and the United States，Greenwood Press，1987，p．118．
