They likely disagree that their "crimes" ought to be illegal, and do not accept the legitimacy of any punishment for such behavior.
Why should they have to "make a choice" and make "better decisions" when they don't believe what they've done is wrong?
The only reason you are making this comment is because you don't believe drugs (and drug dealing) should be illegal.
In fact, as others have pointed out, doing so is even legally recognized in the form of jury nullification.
Or is it different because fast forward to today, looking back those laws were obviously wrong?
Do you have a source for that? I would have expected that he knew that what he was doing was wrong, but did not care because he was greedy. Disagreeing with a law and disregarding the law are two separate concepts. People often do one without doing the other.
His apology that he delivered before sentencing suggests that he knew it was wrong. Of course it would be incredibly foolish to take such an apology at face value, but it would be interesting if there are any statements made by him at other times that contradict this.
They should probably still accept the reality of the punishment, at least until the law is modified. Disobeying a law for moral reasons is only the first half of civil disobedience.
It costs the government money to put people in prison; not only the cost of their food, shelter, supervision, etc. but also the cost of removing a taxpayer from the workforce. Furthermore, a democratically elected government that is increasingly imprisoning more and more of its people is not likely to remain popular. It is in the government's best interest to only enforce laws that the majority of people are happy to obey.
Civil disobedience is a technique that protesters who think a law is unjust use to take advantage of this interest. By deliberately disobeying the unjust law and accepting the punishment for it, they help put pressure on legislators to change it. The government prefers a situation in which no laws are ever broken--that's why it makes such an extensive effort to incentivize citizens not to break them--but in the case where enough people feel it is in their best interest to break the law even with the punishment that comes with doing so, as people who use civil disobedience do, then the law must change if it is to reflect the will of the people.
The example you gave re: homosexuals/death penalty is extreme, but follows the same principles, as long as that government is democratically elected. Most democracies don't get to the point where they're throwing the death penalty around willy-nilly though, thank God.
If you were in power, and you feared civil unrest, it would be in your best interest to establish civil disobedience as the most severe form of legitimate protest. The idea that dissidents should not use violence but should instead submit themselves to arrest is very convenient for those who already have power.
In public schools across America, civil rights activists who advocated non-violent civil disobedience are lionized, while civil rights activists who advocated for techniques that did not involve martyrdom are either ignored or vilified. The first are given credit for the relative success of the civil rights movement, while the role of the later is severely downplayed. I do not believe that this is an accident.
It isn't the majority of all people that matters, just the most consistent individual groups of voters. And felons can't vote. How do you disenfranchise and silence entire communities of people? Disproportionately charge them with felonies. It's obviously broken.
Civil disobedience makes sitting ducks of powerless people. Idealism doesn't change laws, or political culture, or us-vs-them mentalities, or nepotism, or corruption, or revolving doors. Law makers change laws, and not easily. Occupy changed what exactly? Maybe it influenced the adoption of Cop Cams a little, but it had little effect on banking practices, and that system affects pretty much everyone.
Change isn't hopeless, but it doesn't work the way you'd hope it would.
Except when being used as a talking point to stir a base, they do not care. If anything, their budgeting practice of use it or lose it creates a desire to spend as much as they can.
And as the other commenters have pointed out, it is very very beneficial for the most virtuous form of protest to be 'break the law and accept punishment'.
But then I live in Southern California and nobody walks here.
Eating unhealthy food with a high fat and sugar content in your country is highly illegal. In this hypothetical country you live in, the offence of eating unhealthy food is a felony and punishable by time in prison. This law makes sense: It's for the good of the people. It's a victimless crime, but the war on unhealthy food needs to be enforced or else society will become so fat the entire system will collapse. People will be gorging themselves on big macs instead of showing up for work. Think about the children! The kids will get so fat they'll be unable to find a partner, and won't be able to get a job. People will become addicted to unhealthy food and permanently damage their bodies, causing them to die early.
We need to ban unhealthy food, and throw all of the law breakers in prison like they deserve.
It doesn't matter if you disagree or not, it IS illegal.