Nasrat, Qaisar2022-10-212022-10-212022https://doi.org/10.33629/auhfd.890553http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12575/84763Today, political philosophers see the social contract as a symbol of popular satisfaction and the basis of the legitimacy of a democratic government. In political philosophy, it is believed that by entering into a social contract, individuals are deprived of the right to punish offenders and consent to the government to prosecute perpetrators on behalf of them. However, the question is whether this right is an exclusive right of the state, or if the persons who are a party to the social contract transfer it to another person, whether real or legal, that person also has the right to punish. In this regard, two major views of the "instrumental nature of the state" and "the inherent right of the state" have been raised in the practice of punishment. According to the first point, while the people have given satisfaction to the punishment imposed by the government, the government has the right to determine and enforce the sentence, " it is supposed that carry out punishment justice by state is better than any other person. In the second view, however, the state has a role in punitive acts, and acts outside of the state, although are not punishable. The present paper addresses the issue of monopoly on punishment by the government, what are the limits this right and concludes the monopoly of the right to punish is belongs to the State, but it may authorize certain powers to the privat security companies to execute on its behalf.trcriminal justice systemmonopoly of punishmentnational securityArticle