Everything you write is your free choice. And you know it.
I'm still waiting for a definition that could even suggest otherwise. I know I won't get one, because nobody I have this discussion with is ever capable of coming up with one.
If you can't even define the terms, why do you imagine I should "know" it to be true?
Saying "He had no free will" doesn't mean "The state has no right to confine him away from people he might hurt."
You get it.
Saying "he had no free will" would mean there's no basis for using incarceration for vengeance, and it ought to change how prisoners are treated. It does not take away a legitimate need to lock people who remain a threat away. Nor does it entirely take away a justification for some use of incarceration as deterrent, to the limited extent it actually works.
It just means a different calculation over how and when the harm done to those incarcerated outweigh the risks and harms to society of letting them go free, as well as a collective responsibility of society for addressing the conditions that causes these outcomes in the first place.
But a society that accepts that people have less or no actual agency would still have legitimate reasons to incarcerate, just fewer, and still has legitimate reasons for a criminal justice system, just with different priorities.
E.g. protecting against genuine risks of reoffending is still a moral reason to incarcerate where there are no alternatives - maximising freedom means protecting people against real threats even if the person making up that threat is not able to choose differently.
But if you accept that there is no free will, then the moral basis for conditions that amount to vengeance disappears. Society won't collapse over that - in fact, we know from the reoffending rates in places like Norway that treating prisoners better correlates strongly with less reoffending, and so even if you don't buy that there is no free will, it remains the most moral choice purely on the basis of lessening the suffering inflicted on the rest of society as well.
If you accept there is no free will, most of the other logical consequences comes down to how you approach society as a whole, and how criminal justice changes is just a side effect: If people have no free will, then a whole lot of arguments use to e.g. deny benefits and welfare breaks down, and we arrive at a strong moral argument for improving conditions for the poor since we know poverty correlates strongly with more crime, which directly produces harm both for society as a whole and directly for the perpetrator and victims.
None of this causes society to stop functioning. It just stops people using "free" will as an excuse to not to look for root causes and focus on what actually works to reduce offending and reoffending rates by hiding behind immoral ideas about moral hazards.
P.S. I note you've still not tried to actually provide any argument for how free will could even potentially exist.