I don't get it. Why is it a joke?
What you advocate is having some sort of "supreme court" capable of overriding the outcome of a smart contract. For some people this is an acceptable necessity and that's fine. But for others it is not the case - they prefer the risk of bugs instead of having the risk of someone freezing or confiscating their funds for whatever reason. For many this was the main motive attracting them to the crypto-space, e.g. this post on Reddit:

Historically "code as law" is the main selling point of smart contracts. Without that guarantee, there would be no point to using them. You might as well just use PayPal or eBay or Kickstarter for example, because they are able to serve human interests better when you make a mistake. You can cancel payments you made in error, you can make chargebacks if you are unhappy, you can launch a dispute resolution process. And these platforms have much more experience fighting scammers and fraudsters. They also have access to some of the finest legal systems around.

Reasonable people don't expect any guarantee that a smart-contract is free of bugs. For those less reasonable there should be a clear clause in terms & conditions which explicitly states that there might be unintended bugs in the code and in an extreme situation you might lose all your funds. The DAO creators fucked it up because they failed to add this warning and instead they hyped the whole thing.

EDIT: Actually there is appropriate clause in the Risk section of the DAO explainer:

1. Risk of Security Weaknesses in The DAO’s Software
   The DAO concept is both experimental in nature and unproven. There is a risk that, as an open source project, any contributor to The DAO’s software could introduce weaknesses or bugs into the DAO software, causing the loss of DAO tokens or ETH in one or more or even all of the DAO Token Holder’s accounts.