No, all sin is through free will choice. We are still responsible regardless of whether choosing not to sin was an option.
Isn't it contradictory to say you have a choice if you can't choose it?
If you get drunk, you are certainly responsible for trashing your own judgment and reaction time and all.
But while drunk you get behind the wheel of a car and, as happened here, kill a baby in a baby carriage.
So, you didn't have a choice, not really; your faculty of choice was trashed, by John Walker or Monseigneur Courvoisier, or, ah, Mr. Night Train.
So how fair is it to lock you up for vehicular homicide when all you "really" did was DUI?
I mean it about it's being a serious question. I used to think we ought to lock up ALL DUIs for a long time no matter what happened, even if no one was hurt.
Now I'm thinking the REAL crime is renouncing what makes humans dignified, to wit: reason and a love of the good, however corrupt; and the law compliments us by ignoring our renunciation and holding us as responsible as if we weren't trashed.
Kolo is an attorney as well as a baklava-eating schismatic, so he may have a(nother) needed correction for me.
Choices have parameters. I am free to choose to become a clerk at a 7-11, but I am not free to choose to become a professional baseball pitcher. Yet, as to occupation I still say I have free choice. The important parameter to note here is consistency with one's own nature. We say that God is free and sovereign to do whatever He wants. However, He is not free to choose to cease existing. That is outside His nature, yet we still say He is free. Similarly, a lost person has choice, but he is not free to choose to do good in God's eyes. That is outside his nature. Once God changes his nature, through salvation, then he is free to do good.