Free will is so poorly defined that it's really not useful to argue about it. It's a popular concept, not a well-defined scientific one. Since the opposite of determinism is random chance, it isn't any more helpful to reject determinism when talking about the idea of "free will." Nor does rejecting materialism help any - so what if we're all controlled by a mystical "soul" being? That model still doesn't indicate what is meant by "free will" or how a "soul" can do what a materialistic being (according to the popular notion of "free will") cannot.
Quantum mechanics tells us that the universe is not at all deterministic but I don't think this is really relevant to a discussion of free will. What does the behavior of quantum particles have to do with how my brain works? There's no reason to believe they're even remotely connected (no quantum physics pun intended).
And whether or not any such thing as "free will" exists, our social model requires that people who hurt other people be kept separate from the rest of society - ergo jail, or in really extreme cases, the death sentence. The concept of "justice" is an emotional one, with no grounding in logic (but that doesn't make it wrong).
I choose not to hold people responsible for their actions (morally, but that doesn't mean I don't have an emotional desire for revenge just like everyone else does) but there is no logical justification for or against this position because morality is not grounded in logic. My contention is not with people who think that people should be held responsible for their actions, but with people who think that this is an objective position that is objectively correct and grounded in logic in reality.