This seems like a bit of the appeal to authority logical fallacy. Law does not make something valid good or proper and to follow laws for the sake of them being laws is missing the point of laws no? Do you actually value the purpose of the law or is it just a boolean true or false if something is illegal its bad and wrong because it's illegal?

How valuable to society are people who pretend not to be gay when it's illegal?

How much value was there in keeping black people out of the same restaurants as white people?

What value do you perceive society gains by locking people up for smoking a plant that makes you laugh?

On the contrary does it not remove value from society to stringently pursue punitive measures against something like being in possession of a gram of cannabis while higher crimes often face far less significant (relatively) consequences?

The problem is when law isn't applied consistently, or when phenomena such as one's net worth making a difference in level of justice received is observed, then that's a strong message to those paying attention that there isn't value in following the rule of law, but rather value in knowing people in the right places or getting as much money as you can.

Just like there is value in civil disobedience. I think it is a faulty assumption that the value of following the law is not understood by those purposefully breaking it.

At some point, black people in US were punished for drinking from the wrong water fountains. Maybe locking people up is a bit harsh but people know the consequences no? Maybe we should recognize that there is value in having people in a society follow the rule of law.

Authoritarianism for authoritarianism's sake is pretty objectively bad.