For me, the interesting part is that the creators of Ethereum have decided that the owners of the address in question have committed a "crime" and to change the

For me, the interesting part is that the creators of Ethereum have decided that the owners of the address in question have committed a "crime" and to change the way the blockchain works in order to punish them specifically. Sure, users can "vote" by choosing whether or not to accept the fork in the code that does this, but because of the way it's set up, the community isn't going to take it that way. I'm afraid that this sets a precedent that would discourage development (what if we change the way the entire internet works every time someone hacks a website?) and also allow powerful entities within the system an unfair advantage (would we do this for everyone who used a contract of which they didn't understand the full implications? Or is this only in the case of the DAO because of it's high profile?).