Critical conflict practices are better in understanding the causes of developing responses to pipe vandalism in comparison to earlier perspectives of social ecology, opportunity, and situation identified by Hasley. Critical criminology practices uncover reasons for crime across wider structural and institutional contexts. The approach is more practical as it assesses crime and focuses more on its production and relies on multifaceted standpoints. It identifies criminology from a range of positions thus exposing dominant crime discourse. Anthony and Cunneen find critical criminology more practice as it emphasizes on, “the classist nature of crime policy and orthodox criminology” (Anthony and Cunneen, 2008). Critical conflict practices are more efficient as they assess the factors reasonable for crimes such as the relationship of crime with cultures and gender.Critical criminology is more convincing due to the range of characteristics becoming nonexistent in traditional approaches. Understanding causes of pipe vandalism are more appropriate under critical conflict perspectives because it emphasizes on the outcomes of social inequality and power division as pertinent motivators of criminalization and offending. Stubbs identifies the benefits of critical conflict perspectives, “critical approaches have been valued for opening up new frameworks for inquiry, generating often fruitful dialogue with a host of cognate disciplines” (Stubbs, 2007). Critical conflict approach draws on a more profound social theory compared to Halsey’s traditional theory. The approach allows investigators to analyze behaviors and practices after considering their social realities such as backgrounds and class.Hasley’s outline fails to see factors associated with crime from broader perspectives as it relies solely on social ecology. Hasley mentions that “social ecologists came to see an important link between crime rates and level of social disorganization” (Hasley, 2011). The approach reveals that the central focus was on structural weaknesses ignoring individual factors that promoted crimes. The approach displays limitations as it sets two focal points for the identification of crimes including their biological and psychological makeup. However, it failed to consider the reasons from wider angle including political and social inequality. The comparison of Hasley’s social ecology and anomie depicts that weakened controls were not the central reason for increased crime rates. Critical criminology better explains the possible causes and effects thus making it more practical.ReferencesCunneen, C., & Anthony, T. (2008). The Critical Criminology Companion. Federation Press.Palmer, D., Lint, W. d., & Dalton, D. (2011). Crime and justice a guide to criminology. Lawbook Co.Stubbs, J. (2007). Beyond Apology? Domestic Violence and Critical Questions for Restorative Justice. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 7 (2), 169-187.