The coupling of "responsibility" and "free will" has always been a questionable feature of the modern justice system, I personally don't have any issue with tha

The coupling of "responsibility" and "free will" has always been a questionable feature of the modern justice system, I personally don't have any issue with that part in your linked article. However, on "free will" itself, the GP's point (which I agree with) is that the logic that "you don't have free will because XXX determines your choices" is flawed in the sense that, if XXX is actually you (or at least a part of you), then there's no conflict. The fallacy or problem is that it is very hard to define who oneself is, and as such we have culturally been indoctrinated to believe that we aren't our brains, we aren't the society that influences us, but some sort of abstract thing that totally lies beyond the reach of the physical world. (And many people believe this assumption even though they logically know that's not true.) In a sense the reason for this flawed assumption might come back to the concept of "responsibility". When society wants to blame and punish some poor soul for making their own "free choices", it's convenient to invent this abstract, ill-defined but "free" personality so that the rest of society can distance itself away to disclaim any associated responsibility. Because, if we don't apply this mental trick, upon closer inspection, a lot of "moral wrongs" committed by "bad people" would turn out to be the result of influences of their environment. We want to pretend bad people are inherently bad, so nobody else gets a share of the blame.