Environment matters.
Genetics matter.
Free will does not.
Agreed. Wow, we agree on something for once.
Many people also tend to forget the environmental factors of determinism focusing only on biological or genetic ones.
A very important thing people tend to overlook.
Good for you, being right with me, hahaha
Such an explanation would be like answering the question whether a glass is half-full or half-empty. So objectively the terms “relatively free” and “relatively unfree” mean the same. But subjectively they may be different, because from a “relatively free point of view” the human will is relatively free, from a “relatively unfree point of view” the human will is relatively unfree.
If the will of the humans were free, then humans could and would for example live however they want to, as long as they want to, decide whatever they want to … and so on and so forth. In reality humans sooner or later realize that they have to accept facts like illness and death or consequences like punishment (jail or other isolations), if they did not behave according to their environment, to the law, the moral system of their group.
I think it matters in the case for moral responsibility. If you killed someone intentionally, but it wasn’t with your own free will, what does that mean?
The question whether something has happened with or without a human’s own “free will” is redundant, because the human’s will is not free but relatively free. All “rights” that are based on a the false “free will”, especially the so-called “human rights”, have to be rewritten, because they are not right but nonetheless “rights”, because they are very profitable, very efficient, very repressive, very destructive (which means that they are even more profitable, even more efficient … and so on and so forth). 
It means I am still a murderer and a society must still decide if it can and should allow me to continue being part of that society.
But it’s true, it takes a different kind of approach to morality to think of somebody not just choosing to do something deemed immoral but having been born and grown up into being such an immoral person.
This relates also to the idea whether or not people do change (their character and thus their behaviour, desires,…). - Usually no, definitely not over night and only under severe pressure/difficult circumstances and often not the way a modern society would deem for the better.
That changes also the outlook on criminality and what to do about it, what actually can be done/what should be done, depending on what outcome for society is desired.
If its not your free will that killed a person, what did? You were forced to?
I did. But saying this might be confusing because of the “I”.
That “I” is not something which is free.
Better to say -
It happened
or
I happened
Moral responsibility is another construct and illusion.
It’s all contradictive hypocritical bullshit. Society legitimizes some killings while forbidding others.
Justification and legitimization are just parlor tricks of authority used on a mentally weak obedient population.
And once again people ignore environmental determinism. Many killers will say they were forced into their lifestyle environmentally.
One thing, which this “It was a free choice”, or his free will does, it hides the authoritarian aspect of society behind a veil of ‘he didn’t have to do it’, it’s designed to make it look like not anyone is being rejected by society, no, the perpetrator could have chosen otherwise.
I say, no, he couldn’t have chosen otherwise.
But here is where I am departing from The Jokers views, as I understand them - This is not a plea against authority in society. This is showing that authority is hidden in society and that it doesn’t have to stay hidden. I favour openly displayed authority.
Authority can’t be anything other than what it is. It has no more choice than the perpetrator.
As social environment changes, so do the incentives for the people within it change and so does their behaviour.
No free will kind of a choice required.
I don’t see how forced to choose between fewer things than what may have been possible without “environmental determinism” means there’s no choice at all.
One thing I have noted about hard determinists is that this is a black and white issue to them. No reason or logic matters. Not sure why though, its interesting. Then things usually get emotional.
What I get out of your posts is the suggestion that although the perpetrator has no choice, somehow the justice system has a choice in how it responds. That’s simply not the case. The justice system is as much a product of the environment as the perpetrator. It can’t be accountable in the same degree that the perpetrator is not accountable.
When I say that there is no free will then that doesn’t mean that there are no incentives, so punishment still works and changes people’s behaviour, their choices if one wants to describe it it in such discrete events.
Another argument people make is in the line of ‘Why argue for or about anything’, if it’s all determined anyway? That arguing and discourse overall does influence the social environment and affect people’s behaviour. The sprouting of a concept of free will has influenced how people think and thus modified their behaviour in certain ways. In short, no free will doesn’t mean that we don’t think or argue anymore.
The justice system and society overall changes all the time, no free will required for that either.
The arguing is part of what and how things play out.
Compatibilism tries to save free will which is essentially based on the idea of a free and distinct soul which is unaffected and free to be its own point of origin, its own god.
No Free will doesn’t make any sense to me still.
Compatibilism is not based on the idea of a free and distinct soul which is unaffected and free to be its own point of origin. I just explained how free will is in compatibilism in the OP, and it wasn’t that. Free will and determinism work hand in hand in the compatibilistic view, and free will is not absolutely free (nor do I think it ever was and if so, that is stupid) Nor was free will “unaffected” (nor do I think it ever was and if so, that is stupid)