Civil disobedience isn't about avoiding the consequences of that disobedience; it's about doing the right thing even though it's illegal and requires punishment. If your concept of justice can account for civil disobedience like that, that is.
That is to say, if e.g. Snowden's actions were civil disobedience, it's not incoherent to say both that:
1. He was right to leak the info, and
2. He need not be pardoned in the name of justice.
Luckily for you this is exactly how it works in these instances. Those who do right action suffer punishment. While those who did wrong get a free pass to continue doing such.
And I do believe this is inconsistent if you believe that justice has anything to do with right and wrong actions.
Your argument is:
1. There are right and wrong actions.
2. Justice does not decide or even attempt at determining right and wrong.
3. Therefore doing something right or wrong has no bearing on the outcome of our justice system.
As an individual, what your are saying is important and I agree. We have to call upon ourselves to do the right thing in spite of the consequences. But often times civil disobedience seeks to change the injustice of the current system and if that system never changes or adapts as a result then the outcome will always be the same. This may have happened in the case with Snowden (though we can still correct it) but it has not been the same throughout history. I’m very glad that we did not simply exile all our civil rights leaders with no thought given toward bringing a greater sense of fairness to our judicial systems.
That is to say, if e.g. Snowden's actions were civil disobedience, it's not incoherent to say both that:
1. He was right to leak the info, and
2. He need not be pardoned in the name of justice.