"Free will" is irrelevant
I recently listened to a bizarre debate between two sciency guys who don't believe there is any such thing as free will because the Universe is deterministic, but they interpret this in different ways, which is why they debated.
Yet, every point that each of them made was made with the assumption of free will. They were swimming in it the entire time and didn't notice. "She could have done differently" or "What kind of upbringing did he receive?", as if those ideas have any meaning outside free will.
The reason these free will skeptics kept assuming free will exists is that they were focused on how it relates to crime (and things government pretends are crimes). Free will has to exist for them to justify their belief that governments have rights which include allowing a government to punish people (often, Trump in their examples) for their actions. In other words, their statism-- their government-supremacism-- required them to be absurdly inconsistent to avoid exposing the fallacy. It required them to never notice their absurdity or inconsistency.
In my view of the world, if there is no such thing as free will, it doesn't matter.
Does the lightning have free will if it strikes a tree, causing the tree to fall and crash through your roof? It doesn't matter. The lightning did a thing, that thing set other things in motion and damaged your roof. The lightning (in fact, the laws of physics that made that particular lightning strike inevitable) owe restitution for the damage to your house, but the lightning can't and won't pay. Maybe you now believe you or your insurance company have the right to punish the lightning... good luck with that.
If a person commits an act which violates you, it doesn't matter whether the person had any free will to make that choice or not. Something was caused to happen and restitution is owed. A person can pay restitution, even if it is only symbolic and can't erase the whole debt. The person could have been as destined to commit the act as the bolt of lightning was to strike and it doesn't change the debt which was created.
Maybe you also believe that person should be punished.
I don't believe in punishment, which I see as nothing more than revenge with lipstick. It doesn't reduce the debt at all, and in the case of government "justice [sic] systems", it creates even more debt which requires restitution which will never be paid by the archator which owes it: government. I understand the desire for revenge/punishment. I have felt it many times. But I also understand why it is wrong; why it is beyond what I have the right to do.
I understand the arguments against free will. I am not entirely convinced by them, but since free will isn't necessary, I can live with not knowing for sure.