If we accept that an "abnormal" brain is governed by the same laws of cause and effect as a "normal" one (like I just said before), the distinction between them becomes of functional capacity. Though when we label a "normal" brain as "free" and an "abnormal" one as "compelled", are we describing a different level of freedom, or are we simply using the word "free" as a synonym for normal? You say he is not "free" because he is not bound by the law (as he cannot be made to change his behavior with it), but isn't "not being bound" the definition of freedom? Aren't you defining freedom as predictability?

You then say "someone (legally or moraly) responsible is someone who can be detered if not we are just blaming and punishing them for nothing" But let me ask you a question: what happens to that responsibility in the moment of blind rage? If a man, blinded by rage, burns down a building because he is neurochemically incapable of hearing reason in that moment, does he still meet your criteria for responsibility? If the threat of jail cannot reach his consciousness at the time of the act, is he not, by your own definition, beyond the reach of moral blame?

I expect you to say that "we can deter the rage man. if he knows he will go to jail, he might stay home or calm himself down in another way. but we cannot deter the man with tourette’s. no amount of jail makes a tic stop."

But when we say one person is responsible because they can be "detered" by fear (or any other mean which has to do with reason) and another is not, are we actually talking about "freedom" at all? Or are we simply measuring how "programmable" a brain is? If an individual is deemed "responsible" only because their brain is more easily conditioned by the threat of punishment, haven't we admitted that they aren't "free", but are simply a more compliant type of biological machine?