The line between offender and victim is rarely where the law draws it.
The term “gang” has become one of the most overused and poorly defined concepts within modern criminal justice discourse. It is frequently applied to a wide range of entirely different social dynamics, including friendship groups, neighbourhood associations, peer networks, organised criminal enterprises, county lines operations, and relationships formed within custodial environments. This broad and often imprecise use of language has contributed to policies and enforcement practices that can blur the distinction between association, vulnerability, exploitation, and deliberate organised offending. In practice, the label itself can carry significant social and racial implications, particularly for young people who are already subject to heightened levels of surveillance and criminalisation.
Kulturalism approaches gang-related offending primarily through the framework of exploitation and vulnerability. Many young people drawn into serious organised crime are not operating as autonomous or sophisticated offenders. They are frequently children or adolescents who have experienced instability, exclusion, trauma, neglect, coercion, or prior contact with safeguarding services. County lines activity represents one of the clearest examples of this dynamic. Young people are recruited and controlled by adult criminal networks, transported into unfamiliar areas, and placed into situations involving significant violence, intimidation, debt bondage, and exploitation. They are often required to carry drugs, money, or weapons while operating under threats directed both at themselves and their families. Despite this, the criminal justice response has historically treated many of these children primarily as offenders rather than as victims of organised exploitation.
The Modern Slavery Act 2015 was intended, in part, to address this reality. Section 45 provides a statutory defence for victims of trafficking and exploitation who commit offences as a direct consequence of that exploitation. In principle, the legislation recognises that vulnerable individuals may be compelled into criminal conduct by those exercising control over them. In practice, however, the application of these protections remains inconsistent, particularly once young people enter the criminal justice system or custodial environments. Senior courts have repeatedly emphasised the need for prosecutors and public authorities to properly recognise exploitation when making charging and sentencing decisions. Cases including R v MK, R v DS, and V.C.L. and A.N. v United Kingdom reinforced the principle that children subjected to trafficking and coercion should not automatically be prosecuted as though they acted with full freedom and autonomy. Nevertheless, youth custody figures and exploitation-related prosecutions continue to demonstrate a substantial gap between legal principle and operational reality.
These same dynamics intersect with knife crime, serious violence, and homicide. While some young offenders act with clear intent and full awareness of their actions, others become involved through fear, coercion, social pressure, or perceived necessity within environments where carrying weapons has become normalised. In many cases, young people describe weapons not as instruments of status, but as tools of perceived survival within unstable or dangerous circumstances. This does not remove individual responsibility, nor does it minimise the devastating impact of violent crime on victims and communities. However, effective prevention requires acknowledging that vulnerability, fear, and exploitation frequently coexist alongside offending behaviour.
The doctrine of joint enterprise has also played a significant role within this area of criminal justice. Prior to the clarification provided by R v Jogee, individuals could be convicted of the most serious offences on the basis of foresight rather than direct intention or participation. The Supreme Court recognised that the law had taken a wrong turn, yet many convictions secured under the previous interpretation remain in place. Kulturalism continues to support broader discussion and reform efforts surrounding joint enterprise and recognises the work carried out by JENGbA in highlighting concerns relating to fairness, proportionality, and evidential standards.
Above these individual cases sit organised criminal networks operating across regional and international boundaries. Drug trafficking, exploitation, money laundering, online coordination, and serious violence increasingly function through decentralised systems that adapt rapidly to enforcement tactics. Those at the lowest level of these networks are often the most visible to police and the most vulnerable to prosecution, while those exercising control remain insulated from much of the direct risk. Effective disruption therefore requires more than enforcement alone. It requires coordinated safeguarding, early intervention, cross-agency intelligence, and a recognition that exploited children cannot simultaneously be treated as both disposable assets by criminal networks and solely as enforcement targets by the state.
Kulturalism’s position is that any meaningful response to organised youth exploitation must begin at the point of first contact. Where vulnerability is identified early, intervention, safeguarding, and protection must take priority alongside accountability. Without that shift, the system risks continuing to reproduce the same cycle in which exploited children become criminalised adults, communities remain trapped between fear and enforcement, and organised networks continue operating largely intact above them.