I think you grossly oversimply the "struggle" over this question.
Also, I am fairly well informed about the results of modern research both in the biological areas of neuroscience as well as the behavioral. In neither camp, as least as far as I'm aware, has anyone declared this debate settled. Evan David Eagleman, who strongly asserts that free will is vastly overstated, refrains from stating that it does not exist.
I believe you also oversimply the comparison between lower animals and humans. While we do share many similarities in biology (from genetics to body plans) there is nevertheless a vast gulf between our cognitive abilities and the other animals. It is arguable that the more intelligent animals are, the more self-aware they are, the more the possess consciousness, and the more likely it is that they possess a measure of free will also.
That being said, we are not computers. That analogy is just a non-starter.
Why do you believe the burden is on me to "prove" that free will is real? You are the one asserting that it is not. I suggest that places the onus on you to prove your case.
That fact that we perceive it as real is strong evidence that it is real. The phrase, "Perception is reality," is more than a marketing slogan. It is how things work in our brain. Reality is, after all, just a construct of our minds as our brains attempt to make a coherent story out of the sensory input it receives from our various senses.
If there is such a thing as objective reality there is clearly no way we can know it. Until recently we ONLY had our five senses to try to make sense of the world around us. As I know you are well aware, they only give us a very limited and often distorted view of what's "out there." Still, until the invention of devices such as telescopes, microscopes, infrared and ultraviolet detectors, microwave receivers and x-ray film, we were completely blind to much of the physical reality around us.
Now we see more and as a result now we understand more. This knowledge has greatly expanded our perception of reality. What's "out there" hasn't changed, but a whole lot more of it can now get "in there," that is: into our brain.
All the while, what we perceive to be real is real to us, and it continues to be real until we ourselves or someone else can show us there is more to know. This is just one of the amazing things about the scientific revolution.
And yet, while our knowledge base has expanded exponentially over the last century or so, and with it our perception of reality, the central issue of free will has remained unchanged.
Neuroscientists and behavioral psychologists have discovered much about what makes us tick, what it means to be human. Part of that discover is that many of the things we do are indeed beyond our conscious control. Indeed, much of our neural activity seems to operate at a level that is invisible and unknowable to us. Yet that still does not mean that there is not a higher level at which we are in control.
The sum is greater than the parts. A toaster or a race car both have mechanical and electrical parts. We could talk about the nuts and bolts and electrical wiring of each and we'd never understand what they do and how they work without seeing the big picture. In fact, one can work a toaster or drive a car without understanding how either works.
By the way, I'm fond of high performance German racing machines, ... but I digress.
All that being said, you may find David Eagleman's Neurolaw webpage interesting.
There he discusses "how new discoveries in neuroscience should navigate the way we make laws, punish criminals, and develop rehabilitation."