The standard psychological interventions have a responsivity gap that is currently impeding the clinical management of offenders with intellectual disabilities (ID) in the criminal justice system. The given study is a comparative analysis of mainstream Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and specialist programmes, discussing which architectural framework can best be used to promote the reduction of recidivism and behavioral stability. Using one of the synthesis key forensic sources, the research assesses the effectiveness of these pathways in terms of the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model. It is found that there is a definite Responsivity Threshold with standard mainstream services; these programmes provide more extensive social inclusivity, but often they use unadopted cognitive protocols that exceed the processing limits of offenders with ID, which results in increased attrition and restricted skill generalization. Conversely, specialist programmes, especially those based on modified Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) and special therapeutic communities, have much greater levels of engagement, and also a stronger decrease in outwardly directed aggression. The findings imply that universalized forensic models basically deprive the vulnerable groups of fair access to rehabilitation. The article finds that a hybrid model comprising the specialist and mainstream is the most effective. Key modifications in the clinical adaptations that are incorporated into generalist settings under this approach include simpler visual cues and altered pacing. With the cognitive weaknesses of this generation being addressed, the forensic services will be able to enhance clinical outcomes and safeguard the legal rights of the offenders with ID. Longitudinal recidivism data should be given priority in future research to further confirm these special adaptations as the gold standard in forensic disability management.