Responsibility, and its sister concept blame, are distractions from solving problems. Responsibility and blame put the focus on finding who was responsible for the problem and blaming them, which then leads to the logical conclusion of punishing them. But this so rarely actually solves the problem. When someone makes a mistake, it's usually not intentional, and often it's a failure of training. Sure, there are extremes: maybe the person shows up drunk to work and needs to be fired--but that's still not about responsibility and blame, it's just recognizing that people who show up drunk to work can't make good decisions. It's a matter of facts and mechanics, not of responsibility and blame.
> And how can you have control if you don't have free will?
This is a question without implications. Consider the possibilities:
1. Let's say free will exists. We go along our merry way, exerting our control in everyday situations.
2. Let's say free will doesn't exist. We go along our merry way, exerting no control on any situation, but we perceive ourselves as exerting control over everyday situations.
Just try your best, maybe that won't have any effect because you don't have free will, but maybe it will.
I actually tend with Einstein on this: every system I've been able to gain a firm understanding of has had deterministic causality, and the systems where free will could be hiding (i.e. quantum mechanics) don't appear to actually have any connection to the systems that determine human action--that is to say, I don't think free will exists. But so what? It's sort of an irrelevant conclusion.
Responsibility and punishment are good because people make better decisions inside frameworks that recognize these things.
If you're a dog, yes.
If you are a human of the year 2020 of the Gregorian calendar living in a developed country, there are better options.
You wrote Rouchefoucald, which is wrong.
And how can you have control if you don't have free will?