Often, when we read stories in the news or on social media about organised crime activity, it creates fear, and the public reacts by calling on more police or surveillance (typically directed at certain groups). One of the responses is what is referred to as suppression, which includes arrests, surveillance, specialised gang units, firearms enforcement, asset seizure, and prosecution. These tools may be necessary when people face an immediate risk of violence or exploitation. However, suppression alone can have limits. It may displace markets, create power vacuums, intensify mistrust, or widen criminal justice contact for young people on the margins of a network (Gravel et al., 2018; Wiley et al., 2017).

The other response is prevention, which focuses on reducing the conditions that make gang involvement attractive or necessary. This may include stable housing, culturally safe services, mental health support, substance use care, school engagement, employment pathways, mentorship, family support, recreation, and credible community leadership. See Textbox 16.2 below for a local Surrey, B.C., example of a youth gang prevention initiative.

Another response is intervention, which focuses on people already at risk or already involved in organised crime. Effective intervention often requires trust, safety planning, trauma-informed practice, income support, education, and realistic exit pathways. Leaving a gang or criminal network can be dangerous if someone has debts, enemies, addiction, outstanding charges, or no safe housing. A young person cannot simply be told to “make better choices” if the social conditions around them remain unchanged (Carson et al., 2017; Pyrooz et al., 2020).

The last response is harm reduction, which asks how to reduce immediate harms even when crime or drug use has not disappeared. This can include overdose prevention, safer reporting pathways, victim services, and community-based conflict interruption. Some people see harm reduction and enforcement as polar opposites, but communities often need a multi-prong approach. The central criminological question is not whether society should respond, but which responses reduce violence, exploitation, and criminalisation most effectively (Gravel et al., 2018; Wiley et al., 2017).