Consider the 2016 “DAO Crisis”. The Terms and Conditions of the DAO stated the following: "The terms of The DAO Creation

[answerhappygod]

Consider the 2016 “DAO Crisis”. The Terms and Conditions
of the DAO stated the following:
"The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the
smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at
0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this
explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may
modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those
set forth in The DAO’s code. Any and all explanatory terms or
descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not
supercede or modify the express terms of The DAO’s code set forth
on the blockchain; to the extent you believe there to be any
conflict or discrepancy between the descriptions offered here and
the functionality of The DAO’s code at
0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413, The DAO’s code controls
and sets forth all terms of The DAO Creation."
Therefore, the attacker did not technically breach the
terms and conditions of the DAO smart contract. In your opinion,
was the subsequent hard fork of the Ethereum
blockchain:
equitable; and
fair,
according to our contemporary understanding of criminal
law and justice and democratic system of government?