Do enhanced pre-sentence reports protect Black youth or expose bias?

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Camisha Sibblis, Assistant Professor of Sociology and Criminology/Director of the Black Studies Institute, University of Windsor

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once declared: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” However, if the systems created to administer and protect justice are the very sources of injustice, what happens to us as a society?

Like Gladue reports (specialized documents used in Canadian courts for Indigenous offenders outlining intergenerational trauma), enhanced pre-sentence reports (EPSRs) — sometimes called impact of race and culture assessments — have been used by criminal courts to address anti-Black racism. They explain how systemic factors shaped the path and limited the choices of offenders.

This is done to encourage fair sentencing and reduce the over-representation of Black people in prison.

As an academic and clinician who authors EPSRs, I have wondered whether they actually help Canadian criminal courts achieve justice for Black youth as intended, or if the courts still act unjustly while using them.

The recent judgments on two youth who both appealed their adult sentences after being convicted of murder highlights how EPSR use can miss its mark. Although both crimes were severe, sentencing differed for multiple factors, showing that EPSRs may not correct racial bias when the judicial perception of Black youth is distorted.

Parallel crimes, different outcomes

In July 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada made decisions in the cases of R. v. S.B. and R. v. I.M. Both S.B., who had an EPSR, and I.M., who didn’t, violently killed unsuspecting victims in Toronto in 2010 and 2011 respectively, Yet it was determined that S.B. would receive an adult sentence and I.M. a youth sentence.

S.B., a 16-year-old Black male of Jamaican and Trinidadian descent, along with several other youths, lured a 16-year-old into an apartment building stairwell, where S.B. shot him, killing him instantly.

By contrast, I.M., a South Asian male seven months from his 18th birthday, went to the home of his 17-year-old victim with a group, forced him into an alley and stabbed him more than 11 times. After leaving the victim for dead, the group entered his home to rob it, struck his mother twice in the head with a handgun and forced her to sit with her head between her knees while they searched her home for guns.

Bias and the misuse of the EPSRs

In S.B.’s case, the court framed his actions through a lens of adult culpability, overlooking the mitigating factors of his youth and traumatic experiences as outlined in his EPSR. Despite being only 16, the judge determined that S.B.’s conduct showed an “adult-like ability to plan, as opposed to youthful impulsivity [and] propensity for risk-taking.”

This characterization rested on his actions outside of the murder: orchestrating the luring of the victim, directing a co-accused to delete messages and blame rivals for the murder and discussing the possibility of eliminating witnesses.

The court argued that these actions demonstrated “confidence in managing events post-offence rather than youthful panic,” framing his behaviour as inherently criminal. Furthermore, this assessment saw S.B. as having the “ability to exercise adult judgment and foresight.”

These comments suggest misunderstandings of panic, adolescence and brain development. They also underestimate the abilities, knowledge and intelligence of the average youth.

I.M.’s judgment, in stark contrast, highlighted “youthful bravado,” framing his actions as the product of immaturity rather than criminal sophistication. Despite his intention to “prove to others he was ready to progress into more serious criminal activity,” the court downplayed any planning or co-ordination involved in the crime. I.M.’s proximity to aging out of the youth system was overlooked.

While he boasted about the crime with a peer and flaunted a blood-stained shirt, these actions were dismissed as “ill-considered and imprudent,” supporting the perspective of him as a youth needing support. They were said to show “bravado consonant with the impulsivity of an adolescent” rather than learned hyper-masculine behaviour often performed by adults.

I.M.’s “difficult life circumstances” were understood as giving way to “heightened vulnerability” to negative influences like peer pressure, which decreased his moral blameworthiness.

A troubling, structural catch-22

The upholding of S.B.’s adult sentence — a mandatory life term — while granting I.M. a 10-year youth sentence reveals a racialized lens that distorts judgments of age and morality where Black men are concerned.

Despite the EPSR noting that S.B. showed remorse, he appears to have been regarded as irredeemable in the Supreme Court’s sentencing. On the other hand, despite I.M. being deemed by a psychiatrist to have “little remorse” and “a negative rehabilitative prognosis,” he received a lighter sentence.

It’s clear that S.B.’s EPSR failed to counteract the harmful racial stereotypes that equate Black bodies with risk and facilitate a just sentence.

The courts overlooked that poverty can make kids seem to grow up faster because it exposes them early to adult stressors and requires them to develop savvy for survival.

Gaps and similar paths to violence

S.B.’s parents divorced when he was 10, after which his mother was his sole caregiver. At 11, he witnessed his cousin’s murder at a mutual friend’s funeral, which left him “severely traumatized.”

He grew up poor “in a drug- and gang-ridden community,” where he was “groomed” by older gang affiliates. He experienced the loss of several acquaintances and was subjected to beatings and carding by police. Diagnosed with ADHD and a learning disability, S.B. was labelled as displaying “immature behaviour” by one teacher.

I.M., who immigrated to Canada from Bangladesh as an infant, was reportedly raised in a stable, two-parent household and experienced a single yet profound, traumatic event at age 16 — a school shooting. Like S.B., he was diagnosed with a learning disability, but his school records noted his potential as a student. His mother emphasized his attentiveness and willingness to listen.

Both youth began engaging in criminalized activity such as robberies and drug trafficking at around age 12, and both had long lists of misconduct reports, including assaults and trafficking, while in custody for the murders.

EPSRs are clinical assessments used to contextualize complex biological, psychological and social factors. If judges who lack expertise in child development disregard these analyses, what beliefs are they employing to determine developmental age versus chronological age?

This case comparison uncovers a troubling catch-22: Black individuals’ perceived dangerousness heightens with both their perceived intelligence and lack thereof.

Intelligence makes them “criminal masterminds,” and the lack of it makes them “uncontrollable savages.” Both interpretations negate rehabilitation and justify long-term incarceration.

Camisha Sibblis receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

– ref. Do enhanced pre-sentence reports protect Black youth or expose bias? – https://theconversation.com/do-enhanced-pre-sentence-reports-protect-black-youth-or-expose-bias-263255