There are many laws or regulations aimed at the protection of humans from things that are not other humans - regulations on what food or medicine is allowed, re

There are many laws or regulations aimed at the protection of humans from things that are not other humans - regulations on what food or medicine is allowed, regulations for how states have to protect people from fire, regulations for putting down animals that are dangerous to humans etc. There are of course separate laws for protecting humans from other humans, and that is typically where questions of liability and intent etc arise. But I would still argue that these still have nothing to do with beliefs about (strong/non-compatibilist) free will (though of course they historically are related to free-will-based religious conceptions). For one thing, these laws are explicitly targeted at human persons. There is no aspect in the law that would make it apply to a chimp, for example, even if the chimp were determined to have free will just as much as a human. You can't sue a chimp, even if you believe that it is a moral agent: you can only sue a human person. You also can't sue any type of AI agent, and would not be able to without a change in the law. So I would say that existing regulations which apply to non-human beings are also proof that we are perfectly capable of creating laws that don't rely on beliefs about the free will of the entities which these laws govern. The fact that current laws for humans make use of free will terminology is thus incidental, not fundamental. All current legal principles could be re-stated without requiring free will as well - this is what I was trying to claim (though I did claim more than that, for which I was wrong). I will also note that this thread was started by someone who was claiming that you couldn't use the current legal system if you believed the universe is deterministic. The paper you cite works against this argument: it claims that the common notion of free will that most people apply is in fact compatible with a deterministic universe. If you also agree with this paper, then we are probably mostly in violent agreement overall, and in disagreement with sanitycheck's original claim.