> Any contract that has all the outward aspects of being a smart contract but that allows a judge (or anybody else for that matter) to influence the outcome once it is activated is by definition a failed smart contract.

I think the crux of your argument with Marco is that he is viewing the "outcome" in a larger scope than you are. You seem to be focusing on the "outcome" as only the output of the smart contract, while the is viewing the "outcome" as the real-world consequences of the entire situation, as embedded in our political and legal systems.