Because the only law was the code, which was running on a block chain that has been forked.  In smart contracts, there are no "legal representatives" or "judges" or anything.  There's just the code, and the substrate that is supposed to run that code in an unaltered and unstoppable way.  If you kill the substrate on which the code is running, then you are screwing the engagement you had with all participants.  That failure in keeping your engagements can of course be a bonus to those that make a profit from that, but at least we know now that the substrate providers weren't honest when they made their engagement of unaltered and unstoppable, which was the condition for running smart contracts in the first place.

That a honest man playing by the rules was screwed, is bad enough.  That you call him a thief, while he's not the one that didn't keep his engagements, is highly immoral.