Unpacking Competence: Rethinking Fitness to Stand Trial in Intellectual Disabilities

Prompt

this is a sceintific poster presenetation titled: FITNESS TO STAND TRIAL IN INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY A Cognitive Threshold and Assisted Capacity Model in Indian Forensic Practice Arjun Alex Anthony NIMHANS INTRODUCTION Fitness to Stand Trial (FST) is a functional adjudicative construct requiring: Factual understanding Rational reasoning Ability to consult with counsel Empirical research shows that competence failure is more strongly associated with: Executive dysfunction Abstract reasoning deficits Impaired consequence forecasting Suggestibility under authority In Indian forensic settings, assessment frequently emphasizes: Orientation Legal vocabulary IQ score General comprehension This risks a construct shift: From: “Can the accused reason within the adversarial system?” To: “Does the accused understand what the system is?” METHODOLOGY Design: Case-based clinical analysis of FST referrals involving individuals diagnosed with IDD at NIMHANS. Assessment components included: Clinical interview IQ assessment Evaluation of factual understanding Functional inquiry into trial participation ability Cases were analyzed through a cognitive framework focusing on: Applied legal reasoning Executive integration Strategic decision-making Resistance to suggestive influence RESULTS Observed pattern: Factual understanding often intact Role identification adequate IQ in mild IDD range However, structured probing revealed constraints in: Plea trade-off evaluation Counterfactual reasoning Long-term consequence integration Independent strategic consultation Key finding: IQ predicts variance but does not sufficiently explain adjudicative reasoning capacity. A measurement asymmetry emerged: Comprehension is routinely sampled. Strategic adversarial reasoning is inconsistently operationalized. CENTRAL CONTRIBUTION From Binary Competence to Assisted Adjudicative Capacity Competence is traditionally framed as: Fit / Unfit. In mild IDD, this binary model may obscure an intermediate cognitive reality. Distinction: Absence of reasoning capacity vs. Reasoning capacity present but unstable under adversarial cognitive load Mild IDD often involves: Reduced executive bandwidth Slower abstraction Difficulty integrating multi-step legal consequences This may impair unsupported courtroom performance without eliminating core reasoning structures. ASSISTED FITNESS MODEL (Cognitive Accommodation Framework) Western competence research demonstrates: Low IQ alone does not determine unfitness. Structured supports may include: Simplified modular explanations Visual mapping of plea consequences Repetition with structured comprehension checks Neutral communication facilitation Scenario-based reasoning prompts These do not lower legal thresholds. They reduce extraneous cognitive load. Unfit = absence of rational adjudicative reasoning. Assisted Fit = reasoning present but vulnerable under load. CONCLUSION Fitness to Stand Trial in IDD should not be reduced to diagnosis or IQ classification. It is a cognitive threshold construct. The critical question: Is the reasoning system absent — or is it present but overwhelmed? Refinement in Indian forensic practice requires: Direct sampling of applied legal reasoning Executive-function contextualization of IQ Scenario-based adversarial probes Clear articulation of reasoning thresholds Consideration of structured cognitive supports where appropriate Competence in IDD is not a question of awareness. It is a question of functional reasoning bandwidth within an adversarial legal structure.

Image Details