In a fair system, sure, but the American financial legal system is bonkers. There's a reason people are looking for alternatives.
That's not to say it's inherently a bad idea, rewrites are sometimes useful but you need to acknowledge those factors.
(I'd say this does't actually happen because lawyers aren't that daft, but then I remember really long EULAs with really silly clauses...)
It does not work for something like laws. You can't just go and change something the following month because you realized there's an edge case you forgot. All that constant churn will just erode the public's faith in the system.
I am a software engineer. I know full well what it takes to design a well functioning software system. I also know that software tends to ossify processes. Anyone who has ever tried to work against the software of another business knows how straight jacketed that can get. Putting these together my only reasonable conclusion is that smart contracts look like a terrible idea and I would never in a million years trust one.
To stick to the analogy I guess:
Lawyers -> Engineers
Policy Writers -> Architects
Politicians -> Executives, Directors, Sales and Marketing
Judges -> QA
But is this true?
some people have always looked for alternatives throughout history, but very few of them have become popular, most of them were a failure and a bunch of them completely destroyed societies, sometimes for centuries.
I might be completely wrong, but in my eyes the crypto-optimism looks like reverse luddism.
Not to mention techno-libertarian anarcho-capitalism is the ideological driving force behind many decentralisation efforts (hello Bitcoin), which is kinda at odds with improving justice. Many people in the space actively wish to be outside the law. Those are the people who started looking for alternatives, everyone else will parrot any old extreme ideology like “get rid of courts” for a sweet well-paying gig.