How should you respond to criminal behavior if you believe in hard determinism?

Question

There are several ideas on hard determinism, but the core seems to be that in an interconnected existence, there can be no "actions" (free will), but only "reactions" (determinism). An action of free will would have to be a separate entity outside of existence, so we'd say it can't occur. Now fast forward to Joe Schmo the robbing/murdering/rapist. Joe wasn't born in some infinite bliss utopia, then decided one day to invent the concept of scumbaggery. He's a product of an incomprehensible number of variables - maybe some are apparent like his dad was a violent alcoholic or whatever, but most likely it's far more complicated than that. So that's fine - I get all that - but if that's the case, then how can you ethically deal with people like that? You can't hardly let them do what they please at the expense of society, but then how can you get medieval on them when they're basically riding a wave? I think that's a big reason why people fight concepts of determinism that mitigate or eradicate the concept of free will - now everyone has a license to do what they want and how can you punish them, it's not their fault! How would/could/should you consolidate hard determinism with responding to criminal acts?

Answer 1

"How would/could/should you consolidate hard determinism with responding to criminal acts?"

Suppose hard-determinism is true and moral responsibility requires free will and there is no free will. It follows that no convicted felon is morally blameworthy for what he or she does. Does this mean that it would wrong for non-felons to segregate the felons from society as a means to "rehabilitation" or at least damage control? I don't see how it would.