Adding on to that. If you need real life contracts (the law) to enforce consequences of breaching or exploiting a smart contract: why do you need a smart contract at all?
I would treat it essentially as arbitration on steroids; just as in arbitration, you make up an alternative process for deciding who pays whom and how disputes are resolved, so that in most cases you can use the alternate process, however, in unusual cases or boundary cases or outright fraud by one party you can escalate to the full legal system.
Most contract disputes are about disagreements between the parties, not about how the contract just became impossible because a cat burglar stole the property that was the subject matter of the contract.
If the "real" contract is the one enforced by law, and the "smart" contract is the one that might facilitate a burglary, why not dispense with the latter?
If so, what does that have to do with smart contracts?
If the requirement is trivial like in the Bitcoin blockchain, sure, maybe there is some value in it.
But no one in the comments is talking about that. What everyone here seems to be talking about is non-trivial code that is supposed to enforce policies.
Or at least that's what I'm asking about. Where is the value in that?
As smart contracts are supposedly open source, it will probably trivial for you to link to a code snippet that qualifies as a smart contract.
Can you do that? Otherwise, stop trolling.