This whole "code is law" thing came out of the following:

Within programming, you have contracts, i.e. function definitions. This is taken by the non-tech people, blew up and got the attention of all people have 1) no idea how code works, 2) have no idea how the law works.

While great for spreading the word, it also spread the WRONG word. This is one of the reasons why "nobody understands blockchain". It's because the communication is plain wrong.

What you wrote is an invention. Code is law came from, let's say, "techno utopians" that really believed you can programatically organize this way. See the concept of DAO for example.

So, code is law came from programmers that thought code is law. It's not a misunderstanding.

The ETH fork was caused about the difference wrt code is law.

Do you have a source? First I've heard of this angle

It's just my observation. I've seen many presentations about smart contracts, what not in the past, but it's frustrating..

But these things happen over and over again. It's super annoying when there's a conceptional mismatch.

Naming and definitions matter. In fact, wasn't naming one of the three hardest things about programming? :-D

They aren't

stolen funds tend to sit dormant in wallets for years. cannot bring charges unless they try to cash out to fiat

Wrong. You aren't familiar with lawsuits with humorous (but serious) titles like "United States of America vs. Approximately 69,370 Bitcoin".

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/united-states-files-civ... (PDF link showing that exact title towards the bottom)

Because code is not law. "I didnt commit that crime, a computer committed that crime" will not fly with a judge for a microsecond.