I'm a bit confused. Whilst you don't explicitly say it, are you not suggesting it would be better for the public's opinion of the justice system to not sanction Alex Jones to the full extent of the law, if at all?
Your first sentence is that the courts have to be impartial and functional. Ignoring the influence Jones has on the public and fully executing the law as it is laid out by taking InfoWars from Jones sounds like the courts are acting perfectly impartially and functionally.
You specifically mention low risk in your first point but not all jobs have the same risk profile and food delivery drivers absolutely do not have the same risk profiles as say, a retail worker. If the spectrum of "jobs we let teenagers do" is from Kidzania to food delivery cyclist, I think it's in the interest of said teenagers to tip the balance towards Kidzania.
Seriously! Roads are not a joke! Bikes don't have crumplezones! A significant minority of drivers actively target cyclists! The teenagers in these scenarios are also effectively operating under coercion when they swap with a registered driver! How could any of this be low risk?
These are all highly regulated industries/professions. They also include legally required training. Apprenticeships are also not exclusively work - that's the entire point - a significant portion of an apprenticeship is spent in training and education.
Do you seriously think it's acceptable to just hand a child tools that can easily get them hurt or killed, with zero supervision or training, and expect them to be fine? It is already a nightmare for commuter cyclists in metropolitan areas who prioritize safe routes and dedicated cycle paths. You think people this young have the ability to effectively manage the risks of working on the road whilst under time pressure?
Given what you just said and the article you're commenting under, are you sure?