I was referring to the need for a martyr. Though if you are biblically minded, then by allowing Snowden to be crucified we are bringing a curse upon ourselves, cf Barabbas.
No, the "hero" (and I don't think Snowden is one, but I am biased from personal experience) should, if he believes himself to be in the right, defend himself in front of a jury of his peers. That's not the same thing as "suffering"; that's how the judicial system works.
Why? What's the connection between believing one's actions to be right and surrendering to the justice system? Especially if he believes, no doubt correctly, that he would be found guilty and punished severely.
Juries have many times chosen to take a more holistic view of the law, determining that sometimes prosectution is not in the public interest, known as jury nullification.
Juries are in no way bound to find even the most egregiously culpable defendants guilty of committing a crime. Choosing not to do so is not claiming the person did not break the law, but a claim that the law itself was wrong.
It happens every once in a while and is an important feature, not bug of the American judiciary.
Jury nullification is a right, yes. However, jury instruction will very deliberately claim otherwise, and most people do follow it (and if, during jury selection, anyone hints at understanding what it is, they will almost certainly be excused). So realistically it's a very inefficient check.
I consider jury nullification to be a right. I don't consider it to be a moral duty. An impartial jury, from that perspective, is the one that rules according to the law as written.
(I wouldn't do so - but I wouldn't consider myself impartial, either.)
An impartial jury would recognize that breaking that law was the right thing to do because the law was wrong and unjust, and therefore should be abolished. It's not like the US legal system came down from heaven.