Abstract:
The main purposes of this research were to study the inhabitants characteristics of drug prisoners, to study the factors that involved the behaviors of the various perpetration of the drug prisoners, and to analyze the perpetration concepts of drug prisoner in Nangrong Prison, Buriram Province from April May 2001. There were 490 prisons and the samples of this study were 245 members recruited by stratified random sampling. Data was collected through a developed questionnaire survey. The data was analyzed by the percentage, the chi-square, the One-way ANOVA t-test. Finally, the results of the research found that: 1. The inhabitants characteristics that involved the behaviors of various perpetration of drug prisoners were below: 1.1 The most of prisoners were not the local people and were the drug agents. 1.2 The most of prisoners were the members of agriculture and employee family. 1.3 The most of prisoners were not the drug addicts but the drug user. 1.4 The most of prisoners knew their close friends less than 5 years and the majority of them were drug user. 2. The factors that involved the behaviors of the various perpetrations of drug Prisoners were below: 2.1 The characteristics of their friends. They had legal careers such as merchants, employees, or a company employees with no illegal doing, they loved to steal little valenable things inside their homes and others to exchange for money. 2.2 Factors of drug effects. The effects of drug using were curable. Drug using made user easily got the infected disease because their immunity decreased. Seldom using drugs could not make the users addicted. Using drugs through inhalation did not affect the peoples health but making the user addicted. After comparing their additudes in perpetrations, it was found that their attitude were statistical significant at .05 level. The concept analysis of perpetration of drug prisoners in prison: 3. The attitude analysis of perpetration of drug prisoners on prison were below: 3.1 The attitudes of drug users, carriers, and retailers were different. 3.2 The attitudes to the environment of drug user, carriers, and retailer were not different. 3.3 The attitudes of the justice process of drug users, carriers, and retailers were not different