So the courts, in search of expedience, have ruled that determinism is far too risky of a concept from a legal and criminal defense stand point. Better to err on the side of free will, but not call it that. Revealing insight into how the judicial process examines this subject. Thank you for the link.
Justice has rarely been about the truth - it cannot be. But both legal eagles and the common person need to be reminded occasionally that some things done in the name of the law are questionable logically and empirically!
The justice system is a weird dichotomy. First off, you did this bad thing “of your own free will”, so you are guilty of it. This crime on your part resulted in suffering for other people (or had the potential to cause suffering), we do not want you to do it again, so we will apply the absolutely most ineffective form of behavior modification on you in order to get you to not re-offend.
Of course, if you are an agent with free will, behavior modification cannot succeed, because you will would not be subject to external factors, all your misbehavior would arise entirely from within, so punishment could never work. On the other hand, if you do not have free will, the concept of “guilt” must be viewed from a panoramic perspective rather than as a simple momentary choice.
I shall steal that argument for the work I am doing currently!