Selective Appeals To Determinism

A thing I see a bunch that disproportionately bugs me is something I'd call selective appeals to determinism.

You'll hear things like you shouldn't judge X for doing bad things, they can't help but do what they do; if you were in their shoes you would do the exact same thing. E.g. Dale Carnegie in How To Win Friends And Influence People writes:

Take Al Capone, for example. Suppose you had inherited the same body and temperament and mind that Al Capone had. Suppose you had had his environment and experiences. You would then be precisely what he was—and where he was.

Ok.... then by the same logic, the people who are judging them can't help but judging them, right? Oh, we're only applying this can't help but do what they do philosophy to some people and not others?

The selective appeals to determinism feel quite patronising to me; either you believe people can't help but do what they do, or you believe that we can choose what we do, or you have some more-complicated philosophy about the complex interaction of environment and choice, but in that case you should own it and not arbitrarily apply they can't help it to some people and therefore you should choose to react differently to others.

To be fair, selective appeals to determinsm are not logically inconsistent; there's a coherent setup where 1) Al Capone can't help but be Al Capone, 2) people saying you can't judge Al Capone because he can't help but do what he does can't help themselves but say that, 3) I can't help myself but write this salty blogpost about it, 4) you can't help yourself but have [whatever reaction you're having to this post right now]. I have to accept that that's consistent, it's just very annoying to me. (I literally have to accept it, in that I don't have a choice about that, but if I didn't accept it I wouldn't have a choice about that either....)