A "feature" would be something that parties to be in the contract intended. A "bug/ defect/ exploit" will be something that the parties never intended to be in the contract and needs fixing.
To say the recursive-split attack is a "feature" of the DAO is like saying (in the example I gave) paying $100,000 dollars is a "feature" of the mowing contract. It isn't. No-one would "objectively" say that the parties intended that a feature of the DAO was to allow any single person to siphon off millions of dollars of other peoples money when they split.
"The computer says yes" would hold no water in a court of law.
It could be a hidden feature but if it is a hidden feature it's a scam because it's a feature no one knew about except the programmer who wrote the code. If it's a bug or defect then even the programmer who wrote the code didn't understand what the code was doing so even the writer of the smart contract couldn't read it.
As much as I agree with you to a point and am currently taking personal losses in this matter, is this bug not a feature of the arrogance of some prominent parties involved in this project. Its one thing to create functional digital cash as in the case of bitcoin, but expecting to eliminate lawyers without an in-depth understanding of law is a bit naive.