The knockdown argument against consequentialism in the article is the effectiveness of familial punishment. Even granting that, it only seems to apply to some

The knockdown argument against consequentialism in the article is the effectiveness of familial punishment. Even granting that, it only seems to apply to some sort of collectivist consequentialism focused on minimizing crime. Looking at it as an individual consequentialist, the individual would be worse off being punished for the actions of their family. An individual criminal, who care for their family, would also be worse off. So there are significant costs against the (presupposed) benefit of being more effective at deterring crime. Every individual does this moral calculus for themselves, and the result in the aggregate is very little political support for familial punishment. How often is someone victimized by crime vs. do they have a family member on the wrong side of the law?