I don't think there's mutual exclusivity there. The individual can be blamed while also realising that their actions are a result of circumstances/physics/cosmic forces.
If a hurricane (individual) kills a person, it's accurate and fair to blame the hurricane (individual), while simultaneously realising that it's just the laws of physics unfolding and not erroneously attributing a god of the gaps type of agency. Likewise, it's accurate to say that someone who died by a hurricane (individual) is a victim, and that the hurricane (individual) is culpable for the death.
Retributive justice (and certainly other types of justice) can still be argued for even in the absence of free will, under a utilitarian perspective. The absence of free will doesn't imply the absence of utility/qualia/etc.
Families won't accept this of course, because our brains are designed to see agency, seek revenge, monitor debts to see who is not reciprocating, etc, these are just more adaptive heuristics which help us to perceive our social reality in a way that maximises fitness.
If a hurricane (individual) kills a person, it's accurate and fair to blame the hurricane (individual), while simultaneously realising that it's just the laws of physics unfolding and not erroneously attributing a god of the gaps type of agency. Likewise, it's accurate to say that someone who died by a hurricane (individual) is a victim, and that the hurricane (individual) is culpable for the death.
Retributive justice (and certainly other types of justice) can still be argued for even in the absence of free will, under a utilitarian perspective. The absence of free will doesn't imply the absence of utility/qualia/etc.
Families won't accept this of course, because our brains are designed to see agency, seek revenge, monitor debts to see who is not reciprocating, etc, these are just more adaptive heuristics which help us to perceive our social reality in a way that maximises fitness.