Some commentators have claimed that situational crime prevention is the fastest-growing form of crime control worldwide, yet much of this programming is carried out without knowledge of its scientific underpinnings. Situational crime prevention has become synonymous with opportunity reduction and many such programs have been crafted on the basis of practitioners’ own judgment and experiences. Lack of familiarity with the scientific research underpinning situational crime prevention has resulted in some poorly thought out initiatives, which have been widely criticized. The chapter addresses these criticisms through a review of the major theoretical critiques of situational crime prevention in the first half of the chapter and through an examination of the criticisms of its effectiveness at reducing crime in the second half of the chapter. The author also confronts ethical concerns and possible social harms arising out of situational crime prevention strategies. The seven main criticisms of situational crime prevention are identified as: (1) it is overly simplistic and atheoretical; (2) it merely displaces crime or makes it worse; (3) it diverts attention from the underlying causes of crime; (4) it is a conservative and managerial approach to crime; (5) it promotes a selfish, exclusionary society; (6) it restricts personal freedom; and (7) it blames the victim. Each of these criticisms is briefly described, followed by a more in-depth rebuttal of the criticisms. Some of the rebuttals point out that situational crime prevention strategies benefit society by achieving immediate crime reductions and that these strategies provide as much protection to the poor as to the wealthy. Additionally, the author points out that situational crime prevention is not atheoretical but is in fact based on three crime opportunity theories: routine activity, crime pattern, and rational choice. Finally, the place of situational crime prevention in criminological study is critiqued. Tables, box, figure, references