I guess under "bear the consequences" you agree on penalties imposed. Thus, from jurisprudencial point of view there is no more to say about this, since you already counted everything about it.
From philosophical point of view there are two major problems.
Defining the objective (best outcome).
Providing a solution.
Now I can conclude that every set of laws is seen as a solution (approximate as there are too many possible outcomes) for some objective. Whether it is good or not in the sense of philosophy to follow the law depends on these two points:
Your's and legislators' objectives may differ. Even more different legislators might have disagreements about the purposes of laws.
Even if you agree on that one, there still can be a disagreement on how to achieve it.
The problem with the first point is that usually legislators do not document the objectives (maybe there are some exceptions) and moreover if they would there is no guarantee they do not lie.
About second point I'd say no set of laws provides the best solution that covers all cases. I guess the set of laws that could do that would be larger than the whole universe. Thus it may be better to break the law especially in some uncovered extreme case.
Here I consider no natural law as in that case other problems come.