Today, political philosophers see the social contract as a symbol ofpopular satisfaction and the basis of the legitimacy of a democraticgovernment. In political philosophy, it is believed that by entering into a socialcontract, individuals are deprived of the right to punish offenders and consentto the government to prosecute perpetrators on behalf of them. However, thequestion is whether this right is an exclusive right of the state, or if the personswho are a party to the social contract transfer it to another person, whether realor legal, that person also has the right to punish. In this regard, two majorviews of the "instrumental nature of the state" and "the inherent right of thestate" have been raised in the practice of punishment. According to the firstpoint, while the people have given satisfaction to the punishment imposed bythe government, the government has the right to determine and enforce thesentence, " it is supposed that carry out punishment justice by state is betterthan any other person. In the second view, however, the state has a role inpunitive acts, and acts outside of the state, although are not punishable.The present paper addresses the issue of monopoly on punishment by thegovernment, what are the limits this right and concludes the monopoly of theright to punish is belongs to the State, but it may authorize certain powers tothe privat security companies to execute on its behalf.