Direct law is not an attitude demand, it is an elevator angle demand, so it is more like an AoA demand.
The reason to release the sidestik, erroneously, is because in normal law, what we do all the time, is to trim the airplane in flight path by releasing the sidestick. So when we mistakenly we do that, in direct law, it is very nasty for the airplane, pax and everyone. After many years in the bus that is what happens to many, even if they have thousands on conventional types.
The flight path stable, trimless airplane is very easy and natural to fly, but different to the conventional speed stable, trimmable airplane. When you are used to the A320, direct law is unnatural. It wouldn't be if it had artificial feeling. Being spring loaded to neutral makes it absolutely non natural, non conventional. If you come from 10,000 hour flying the 737 you will get to normal law like a duck to water, but not so with direct law. Direct law sucks. Many think of it as a reversion to conventional and it is not. It is a very degraded control system, and it requires a lot of concentration to fly the thing decently, and most don't fly it decently, I have to say. A conventional airplane out of trim is easier to handle than a direct law 320 out of trim. It is in manoeuvers like the Go Around when you see this more clearly. When the airplane is in trim you can make gentle turns, climbs and descents. When you go out of trim things are much different because you can't feel the airplane properly. Trimming like in the Microsoft FS is not what a pilot conventionally does, even if airbus says it is.
Direct law instead of alternate law is a dangerous and silly thing to do. Direct law is the most degraded control law. It is not something you revert to. It is something you can't help, an abnormal situation with risks, similar to a 767 with faulty artificial feel.
English is not my first language, maybe dangerous is not the adequate word.