Determinism and denial of free will literally has nothing to do with the question whether we should or should not discourage certain behaviours, if we deem them detrimental to the society, or violating basic human rights (which we, as a legal system, accept as axioms).
The problem with justice should not be stated whether we should or should not act on such events, but rather that if we accept that there's no free will, we have to rebuild our justice system as not to punish these acts, or, paradoxically, bring justice (which is just catering to the craving for revenge on the victim's side), but rather preventing the act from occuring again. This might include trying to get to the bottom of why a criminal did what he did, and make sure he doesn't do that again, isolating him if we think that we cannot prevent reoccurence of such behaviour (for life without parole obviously, sentencing to a particular time in jail has no sense in this line of thiking).
So the only thing current legal system does correctly is by inflicting suffering upon perpetrator it deters others who might do the same, not do it, in fear of consequences. But even then, we can see that there is not real correlation between the severity of punishment in a given legal system, and crime rates in the society that this system works with.
In short: you are a retard that reiterates stupid talking points without giving any thought to the subject you are trying to have an opinion on. Either think harded or kys.