The thing that comes to mind is # 2 The idea that will, to be will cannot be free. To be free of will is to be impassive and unmoving. All living creatures have will because they have compulsions that require action to live. (eat/ breath/ reproduce).

The only way to win the battle is to say there is no true determination, therefore nothing to be compatible with.

It seems you might be going too far down the rabbit hole, when you can just stop right here....BUT I think I see where you are going with this.

An argument FOR compatibilism would be that within the determined behavior, there is a range of free will options.

Yes, you were raised by an alcoholic mother and an absentee father- but you didn't rob a bank- therefore within the parameters of a crappy childhood, you have the choice to commit crime or not commit crime.

You can argue that there are other subsets of determinations that we cannot obviously see that allows some to live a good life, and others to rob banks. ( like genetic predisposition of certain behaviors)

So, if you want to answer the question if it's morally correct to punish someone who seemingly doesn't have free will, how about this:

The act of punishment is a determination of it's self. It “corrects” or reprograms the individual, restricting their behavior to only that which is beneficial for society. Punishment is not retribution as much as a “course correction”. Even if the individual is put to death, that death will correct others.

Since morality is based upon societal rules (that change from society to society, and is therefore fluid) All the society has to do is agree that it's moral to do so, and viola! It's okay to chuck people in prison if they had bad parents.