Free will is seen as problematic by many thinkers.  If you abandon it as not useful or not telling us much or as being completely wrong then what?  The alternative is that if I do x right now there are billions of forces in me and out of me ensuring I will do x only.  I cannot do y instead even if I get the chance again.  This is called determinism.  The notion that free will and determinism fit together is confusing nonsense.  It argues you are to be held to blame for what you do as long as no person held a gun to your head. This ignores how causation can be more controlling even than somebody with a gun.  The doctrine is called compatiblism. 

It has benefits though that we can have while dismissing it as nonsense.  Voluntarism might be the answer.

Voluntarism does not say if we are really free or not. All it cares about is that we do something because mostly we want to do it. You may see it as a good replacement for free will. Or you can understand it this way. It is what we should be thinking about not if the person has free will or not. We can treat them as if they are responsible. We reward them or withhold reward (not the same thing as punishment) because we have to do something to make sure they want the best things for society.  I feel that is the way most people would go.  Voluntarism gets results and validates people without the philosophical and religious baggage of free will.

Nothing further should be needed.  Religion has the justice system overreaching.  A lawyer is not a philosopher.  The law codes are not philosophy manuals.