The Mercer County League of Women Voters and The Herald posed five questions to the eight candidates for two Mercer County Common Pleas court judgeships. The following are their answers to one of the five questions. The last answers will be published in the Thursday's edition of The Herald.

Do you think alternative sentencing -- house arrest, community service -- is an effective penalty and in what cases is such a sentence appropriate?

   » CHRISTOPHER ST. JOHN: Alternative sentencing can be an effective means of punishment in appropriate cases. Community service is an acceptable way to require certain offenders to give something back to society. Offenders eligible for intermediate punishment under the County Intermediate Punishment Act are limited to those who could be sentenced to the county jail and who do not have a pattern of violent behavior. The court must first determine the statewide sentencing guidelines applicable to the offender. In general, intermediate punishment is available for low level offenders with low prior record scores. Moreover, the court must weigh may factors. The training I received from the Commission on Sentencing and my experience in thousands of criminal cases will enable me to use alternative sentencing appropriately.

   » JOHN REED: Sentencing must impose a punishment commensurate with the crime and, if possible, provide rehabilitation. Imprisonment punishes criminals by restricting their freedom, but it is also costly to our taxpayers. Some forms of intermediate punishment, also know as alternative sentencing, such as house arrest and work release, restrict a criminal's freedom and reduce the taxpayers' burden. Other forms of alternative sentencing, such as community service, save taxpayers' money and fulfill a need in our community. Having served in the U.S. Army, I know that "boot camp" is confining and provides strict discipline, but it has a good rehabilitative success record. In an appropriate case, alternative sentencing may accomplish these purposes -- punishment, rehabilitation, and also save taxes.

   » WILLIAM G. MCCONNELL, JR.: Yes, the use of alternative sentencing, i.e., house arrest and community service, can be an effective penalty under certain limited circumstances. Alternative sentencing should be used only on a case-by-case basis, and only in cases involving low-risk, nonviolent, first-time, non-serious offenders. The prudent and appropriate use of alternative sentencing can help reduce the ever increasing cost of incarcerating offenders.

   » STEPHEN J. MIRIZIO: It is my opinion that alternative sentencing inclusive of house arrest and/or community service is an effective penalty if properly applied. Application of alternative sentencing should be allotted on an individual basis applying a criteria standard, for example, affording these alternatives to first time offenders, crimes of low impact and/or of a certain or lesser grade. The overriding concern would be whether the defendant would be a threat to the community. The obvious advantage is the overcrowding of detention centers and the cost of maintaining those incarcerated. Alternatively, passing the cost of house arrest and/or community service to the defendant would not only alleviate the financial burden of maintaining detention centers, but also could create a sense of responsibility and rehabilitation.

   » MARGARET T. LUCAS: Alternative sentencing programs are among the many sentencing options available to the courts at the present time. This penalty is generally applicable in minor criminal matters where the defendant is not a danger to the community as a whole. As a judge, I would utilize all of the sentencing options available to me given the specific facts and circumstances of the individual case. A judge must balance the enforcement of the law and the imposition of more traditional sentences with the need to recognize individual circumstances of the defendant and the victim as well as the physical and financial limitations of the system.

   » JAMES M. GOODWIN: Alternative sentencing can be effective. Clearly there are cases where an alternative sentence would not be appropriate based upon the severity of the crime. Where appropriate, the effectiveness depends more on the individual being sentenced as opposed to the type of case involved. In order for alternative sentencing to be effective, judges must be able to determine the character of the individual and balance that against the need to protect society.

   » JAMES NEVANT: Alternative sentencing can be effective. This has to be addressed on a case by case basis. The ideal goal is to instill an ethic in the offender which causes him/her to abide by the law and respect their fellow citizens. If there is a reasonable chance that that can be achieved by "alternative sentencing," which can be cost effective and expedient, then it should be a consideration within the judge's discretion. When there is not a reasonable chance of that occurring, or when the nature of the crime and respect for society, especially the rights of victims, are such that more traditional sentencing (incarceration) is warranted, then that should be enforced. A judge has to draw that distinction from a base of practical experience.

   » JOANN M. JOFERY: Alternative sentencing is most definitely appropriate after a determination that the particular defendant poses no threat to the community at large or to the victim or witnesses. As a social worker with a master's degree in counseling, I often assisted judges in making those same type of assessments. Alternative sentences need to be used when the offender appears amenable to treatment and when communities' resources exist to reasonably insure compliance.