The government has announced renewed ‘crackdowns’ on gang activity and has increased gang sweeps of neighbourhoods where they believe gang activity is high. In addition, the government has also begun to file elevated legislation that Rangers can detain suspects for up to 90 days without any preliminaries. Gangs are a key risk factor for violence, victimisation and gang violence, including homicide, most often directed against other gang members. Gang homicide rates are estimated at up to 10 times that of the broader population and the level of gun use by gangs often appears to be related to the availability of guns in the cities where they are active. Motives for gang violence, including racial or ethnic conflict, economic gain and respect or power, appear to share similarities across regions. The history of gangs is correlated with migration. A number of classic studies have reported the possible causal link between immigration, socio-economic position, social disorganisation and gang formation. More recently, in Europe, the impact of migration on gangs reflects a complex mix of factors that also includes cultural and media influences. In addition, there are other contextual factors such as immigration and population movement, which have received less attention yet condition the relationship between structural factors and the formation of gangs. Processes such as immigration, migration and resettlement have had an important impact on the transmission of gangs on an international, national and local scale, often enhanced by the impact of immigration. Social theories of utilitarianism, retribution and rehabilitation are invoked to understand the rationale of criminal sanctions. The first common rationale used to justify a criminal sanction is rooted in a utilitarian perspective. Utilitarians focus on overall social good and favour policies that benefit all of society, regardless of the impact on particular individuals. Therefore, the utilitarian perspective is not concerned with the culpability of a particular individual or whether that individual subjectively deserves a specific punishment for his or her actions. Instead, utilitarians argue that a criminal sanction is justified if it leads to an overall reduction in the crime that would otherwise occur in society. Lawmakers invoke this perspective when they assert that tough criminal sanctions will deter individuals from committing a particular act and thus make society safer overall. Other lawmakers use theories of retributive justice to defend the criminal sanctions they advocate. Retributive justice theorists argue that the purpose of criminal sanctions is to punish criminal offenders for their actions. The most common basis for retributive justice is the theory of ‘just deserts’, which asserts that individuals deserve to be punished whenever they choose to violate society’s laws. Proponents of just deserts assert that individuals deserve different punishments based on the severity of their actions and the depravity of the moral offences they have committed. The just deserts theory is not concerned with overall social good; rather, it focuses on whether or not the individuals themselves deserve punishment. The theory also focuses on examining personal characteristics and circumstances in order to determine whether an individual deserves a particular punishment. Other retributive justice theorists argue that criminal sanctions should be based on the desire to punish offenders because punishment recognises the moral agency of offenders. Punishment communicates to offenders that their actions are wrong and that they, along with all people, are equally subject to the law. From this perspective, retributive justice theorists are concerned with recognising the dignity and value of all people. The dignity of victims is restored through acknowledging and addressing the harm caused to them. At the same time, the dignity of offenders is respected because they are given moral agency and held capable of formulating their own choice. Finally, others argue that the purpose of the criminal justice system and the punishments it imposes should be to rehabilitate offenders. Under the rehabilitative model, criminal offenders are seen as ‘ill’ and in need of treatment in order to be capable of obeying society’s laws. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to provide this treatment and reform criminals into law abiding members of society. Rehabilitationists argue that we should look at the context of an individual and the external factors that lead him or her to commit crimes and then help that person respond to these factors more productively. Rehabilitationists are less concerned with punishment for an individual crime or overall social benefit; rather, they focus on reforming individuals and ensuring that they do not commit future crimes. The rehabilitationist model is often seen in parole hearings, where a parole board determines whether a convicted offender should be released into the public or remain incarcerated. Unprecedented urbanisation has created fertile conditions for the growth of gangs, particularly in Karachi. Unlike the expansion of the city in the earlier industrial era, in the global era the city has retreated in the face of instantaneous financial flows and neoliberal monetary policy, while emphasising punitive policies toward marginalised communities. Gangs and other groups of armed young men occupy the vacuum created by the retreat of the social welfare policies of the state. The strengthening of cultural identities by men and women is a central method of resistance to marginalisation. The central issue is that gangs today are organisations of the socially excluded, most of whom come and go as their wild, teenage peer group ages. However, a substantial number institutionalise on the streets, either through self-generated processes or with the assistance of already institutionalised armed groups. Some gangs institutionalise and become permanent social actors in communities, cities and nations rather than fading away after a generation. These gangs often replace or rival demoralised political groups and play important, albeit often destructive, social, economic and political roles in cities around the world. In Karachi, such unsupervised groups of youth are often ‘supervised’ by a variety of criminal groups and recruited by nationalist and religious militias. Gangs are being reproduced throughout this largely urban city by a combination of economic and political marginalisation and cultural resistance. In some places, institutionalised gangs and other groups of armed men have moved into the vacuum created by poor political leadership. These groups are wrongly influenced and are looking desperately for a better life today, not tomorrow. For them, the promises of a prosperous future have proved to be illusory. Gangs are one price we pay for the failure of economic stability. Dealing with gangs as social actors requires a policy of both intolerance for violence and tolerance of informal, nonviolent economic activity. It requires more negotiation and less suppression. How we deal with the reality of gangs and others among the socially excluded is one of those markers that will shape the nature, and the future, of Pakistan. The writer is a member of the Diplomate American Board of Medical Psychotherapists Dip.Soc Studies, member Int’l Association of Forensic Criminologists, associate professor Psychiatry and consultant Forensic Psychiatrist at the Huntercombe Group United Kingdom. He can be reached at fawad_shifa@yahoo.com