For example, suppose a man gets fed up and goes on a killing spree, ultimately ending in suicide. However, he has a daughter that he care about and you (somehow) know that he would have been less inclined to go on a killing spree if he thought his daughter would be punished as a result. Would you favor punishing the daughter?

This is an interesting one. The naive answer is that it doesn't matter who gets punished as long as the incentive is strong enough to overcome the disutility of punishment.

You'd have a hard time showing that the incentive is enough, tho:

1. This is not a rational defection, so punishment is only partially useful.

2. Punishing someone else is not as strong a disincentive as punishing the perp. Family bonds are usually weaker than self preservation, and in many cases, totally absent. If you modified it to see if the family bonds were strong before punishing
   someone else, that would create an incentive to not associate with family.

3. This policy puts a load on the family that is present even if no crime is ever committed. Putting this load on everybody for the sake of a decrease in an already small crime rate probably isn't worth it.