Criminological theories have been used on a micro and macro scale in order to seek an answer to why people commit crimes. The Broken Windows Theory and Routine Activities Theory were selected because the two theories offer different perspectives on why crime occurs and how to solve it. Theories will be examined to obtain a historical origin, expose the main principles, distinctive features, misconceptions and criticisms of each theory. Broken Windows TheoryOriginsJames Wilson and George Kelling initially developed the broken windows theory as a hypothesis in their 1982 article in The Atlantic: Policing and Neighborhood Safety, the idea was later expanded by George Kelling and Catherine Coles. The broken windows theory suggests that one broken window will lead to another broken window due to social disorder. Their theory suggested that unresolved disorders could potentially lead to an increase in fear of crime; rising fear causes the community to retreat and take precautions or stop using community areas. The result is a decline and breakdown of community controls, leading to more serious crime and unrest. Famous psychologist Philip Zimbardo performed an experiment in 1969 that supported the idea of ​​broken windows, before the theory was constructed. Zimbardo left a car without a license plate and opened the hood unattended in the Bronx, New York. Within 10 minutes, the car was attacked by vandals. Zimbardo did the same in Palo Alto, California, but this time the car remained intact until Zimbardo himself He broke one of the windows himself and only afterward the car was searched. (Wilson & Kelling, 1982).Central PrinciplesWilson and Kelling outlined the main concepts of their theory in the middle of the article......macro and micro theory of crime can be criticized at the micro level. . Routine activity explains why an offender may choose to commit an offense, but fails to explain why some choose not to commit a crime when all three criteria are met, while others choose to commit a crime. Miethe and Meier (1994) explained that routine activities fail to explain the motivation for crime, which becomes a major flaw when using routine activities theory to explain certain types of crimes. Finally, routine activity does not account for impulsive crime, for example, thefts committed in front of a competent guardian or robberies. Conclusion Broken windows and routine activation theory were both generated in the 1980s as potential explanations for crime. Both theories can examine crime at the macro level, which is crucial for the environmental criminologist, while routine activities can