The "Guiding Opinions on Punishing Cyber Violence and Illegal Crimes in accordance with the Law" jointly issued by the "Two Highs and One Department", Detailed provisions have been made on how to implement the assistance of public security organs in collecting evidence in private prosecution cases: For cases where the victim initiates a self prosecution for online insults and defamation, if the people's court deems it difficult for the victim to provide evidence after examination, it may request the assistance of the public security organs. The public security organs shall, in accordance with the requirements of the people's court and the specific situation of the case, promptly identify the subject of the act, collect relevant evidence materials on the dissemination and spread of insults and defamation information, and the impact caused. With the assistance of the public security organs in collecting evidence, the self prosecution case can be achieved If the conditions for acceptance are met, the people's court shall decide to file the case; If it is impossible to collect relevant evidence materials, the public security organs shall explain the situation in writing to the people's court. This regulation is a specific implementation of Article 246 (3) of the Criminal Law at the level of judicial operation.

The third paragraph of Article 246 of the Criminal Law is a newly added content in the 2015 Amendment to the Criminal Law. Its progressive significance lies in the establishment of a system for public security organs to assist in evidence collection in private prosecution cases, but its limitation lies in only targeting insults and defamation behaviors carried out through information networks. Prior to this, Article 176, Paragraph 3 of the "Regulations on the Procedure for Handling Criminal Cases by Public Security Organs" only stipulated that "if the people's court hears a case of private prosecution and lawfully retrieves the case materials and relevant evidence already collected by the public security organs, the public security organs shall transfer them in a timely manner.". That is to say, the public security organs can transfer the case materials obtained through investigation (usually cases of public prosecution to private prosecution or related cases), and the court cannot request the public security organs to retrieve new evidence materials. However, the difficulty of obtaining evidence in private prosecution cases is a common problem, as without the power of investigation and evidence collection and compulsory measures, it is difficult to achieve success in private prosecution cases.

The author takes the crime of bigamy as an example. The victim has learned some facts and clues through various channels, and knows that their spouse has a home outside their home. However, it is difficult to hold them criminally responsible for bigamy. Because fixing these facts and clues in the form of evidence is an impossible task. Due to the lack of investigation and evidence collection rights, legal evidence cannot be obtained for bank accounts, whereabouts, residence, social relationships, illegitimate children, etc. These pieces of evidence are necessary conditions to prove that spouses and third parties live together in the name of spouses, thus constituting the crime of bigamy. Therefore, self prosecution of bigamy is often difficult to succeed. I have seen many cases in judicial practice where a spouse has been harmed but cannot be punished for bigamy. The author has only seen a case where a private prosecutor was convicted of bigamy, and the private prosecutor was a "third party" who was deceived into marrying a married person and giving birth to a child. After discovering that her husband already had a family, she angrily chose to file a self prosecution for bigamy. She has a large amount of evidence of living together with her husband in the name of husband and wife, including comprehensive evidence of dating, buying a house, wedding ceremonies, having children, attending parent teacher meetings in the name of parents, and so on. Even in this case, the first prosecution was rejected by the court due to insufficient evidence, and the second prosecution, after thorough preparation, finally sentenced the bigamy victim to punishment. It is still so difficult for a third party to sue based on their own life experience as evidence of a crime, and it is even more difficult to investigate and collect evidence in the identity of their original spouse.

Not only the crime of bigamy, but all private prosecution cases face such difficulties. In public prosecution cases, public security organs have the power to investigate and collect evidence, the power to take compulsory measures, and the authority of state public power organs, while ordinary people have nothing. But the evidence standards for convicting private prosecution cases are the same as those for public prosecution cases, and there is no relaxation in the court. Insufficient evidence and the defendant's absence from the case can lead to the court dismissing the lawsuit for any reason.

In the article "Case Search Report on Online Defamation", an empirical study was conducted on defamation crimes between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2020. From the perspective of litigation methods, there were a total of 28 public prosecution cases, with 22 successful cases and a success rate of 78.57%. There were also 105 private prosecution cases, with 28 successful cases and a success rate of only 26.67%. It can be seen that the number of public prosecution cases is much lower than that of private prosecution cases, but the success rate is much higher than that of private prosecution cases.

The existence of private prosecution cases is necessary and reasonable, and cannot be completely cancelled. There are conditional restrictions on transferring private prosecution cases to public prosecution, and it is impossible for all cases to be handled by public security organs. However, in the face of the practical difficulties of collecting evidence, filing cases, and sentencing guilty in private prosecution cases, the assistance of public security organs in collecting evidence can be an effective solution. The assistance of public security organs in evidence collection is a system in which public power partially intervenes in private prosecution cases, which not only retains the autonomy of private prosecution cases, but also solves the problem of difficult evidence collection for private prosecutors. Moreover, in practice, being supervised by the court will not excessively waste judicial resources.

The key to the effectiveness of this system lies in the courts. Because it is up to the court to decide whether to request assistance from the public security organs. Generally speaking, the judge is the intermediary in the judgment, judging which side to support based on the evidence of both parties. If the plaintiff's evidence cannot prove their claim, the lawsuit can be dismissed. But in criminal private prosecution cases, the court is not only the judge, but also undertakes a part of the prosecution function. When the plaintiff faces difficulties in obtaining evidence, the judge may request the public security organs to retrieve part of the evidence. It should be said that this is a system with Chinese characteristics, which is a trial system that protects the legitimate rights and interests of victims and pursues substantive justice.

The author strongly calls for the application of the public security organ assisted evidence collection system in all private prosecution cases, but at the same time, in order to avoid excessive reliance on public power by private prosecutors, it is recommended that judges strictly review the necessity, clarity, and feasibility of evidence retrieval before making a decision. Firstly, the evidence that the private prosecutor can obtain should be provided by the private prosecutor in principle, and this responsibility should not be transferred to the public security organs. Secondly, only important evidence that proves conviction and sentencing can be requested to be retrieved by the public security organs. Evidence that is not strongly related to the case and is optional should not add burden to the public security organs. Thirdly, the court requires that the type, name, and quantity of evidence to be retrieved must be clear and specific, rather than giving the investigation direction to the public security organs to decide on their own. Fourthly, the court should evaluate and make a preliminary judgment on whether the evidence can be retrieved. For evidence that has been lost, altered, or destroyed and is clearly impossible to obtain, the public security organs cannot be required to retrieve it.

In summary, the author believes that the system of public security organs assisting in evidence collection stipulated in Article 246 (3) of the Criminal Law is very meaningful and plays a crucial role in protecting the legitimate rights and interests of private prosecutors and promoting the smooth progress of private prosecution cases. It is strongly recommended to apply it in all private prosecution cases, and the judge should grasp its scope of application and specific standards.