Social control theory suggests that crime, its deterrence and prevalence, is a product of the process of social learning and interactions. Thus, corporate crime is a consequence of the working conditions and environment of employees (Simpson, 2002). Employees are motivated from committing crime to stay as part of their orientation into the organization or to protect one’s job, advancement and social standing in the company.Controls of corporate crime can then be developed directly, by establishment of punitive measures such as demotion, suspension or dismissal; indirectly by offering incentives for career advancement for those who comply with regulations; internally by emphasizing the communal effect of failure to comply with regulations; and through needs satisfaction methods or providing benefits such as retirement or loyalty programs. Environmental criminology suggests a link between the incidence of crime and spatial settings.This means that there are certain environments that become predisposed to crime or to a particular crime or that an individual’s cognitive behaviors are influenced by this environment. These spatial areas are characterized by not only living conditions but also by a lifestyle that creates greater vulnerability to victimization (Bartol & Bartol, 2006). These areas develop because of the vulnerability of victims, lack of mechanisms for monitoring or detection and the possibility of significant rewards from crime.Among the sociological theories regarding criminal behavior, learning theory can provided significant insights to the current trends in homicides and assaults in the United States. In contrast to control theory, there is indication that punitive measures and conditioning is not influencing these crime trends as indicated by the establishemtn of no clear relationship between the severity of control mechanisms and the prevalence of homicides and assault (Weisner et al, 2003).Though this is not to day that control theories can not be productive in the study of criminal behavior, by using learning theories, the nature of these crimes can be analyzed to determine what causes the characteristics or behaviors associated with aggression (Jensen, 2007). Furthermore, by studying the social learning process that leads to these crimes, factors that influence the level of control that individuals can develop can used to determine preventive programs. References Bartol, Curt R. & Anne M. Bartol (2006). Current Perspectives in Forensic Psychology And Criminal Justice. London: Sage PublicationsJensen, Gary F. (2007). Social Learning and Violent Behavior. The Cambridge Handbook of Violent Behavior. David Flannery, Alexander Vazonsyi, and Irwin Waldman (Editors). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Simpson, Sally S. (2002). Corporate Crime. Law, and Social Control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weisner, M. , Capaldi, D. M. & Paterson, G. ( 2003). Development of ant-social behavior and crime across the life-span from a social interactionist perspective: The coercion model. In R. L. Akers & G. F. Jensen (Eds. ). Social Learning and the Explanation of Crime: New Directions for a New Century. pp. 317-337.