A US influencer faced a backlash when she grabbed a baby wombat infront of distressed mother and recorded a video. Australian PM Anthany Albanese suggested her to try the same with a baby crocodile and see how it goes.

In The same world and on the same planet It’s unfortunate that many people in Pakistan illegally own wildlife, and it has become common for celebrities and powerful individuals to gift each other cubs. Authorities either turn a blind eye or, when action is taken, fail to send a strong message about wildlife conservation. Recently, a Youruber Rajab Butt who received a baby cub as a gift was released without serious consequences and was merely asked to create videos on animal rights—yet not a single video has surfaced. Meanwhile, the person who gifted the cub was not even asked and no action has been taken against them. It’s even more appalling that, despite being Pakistan’s national animal, a Markhor was recently hunted in Chitral by a U.S. citizen who won a bid of $271,000.

It’s not just about animal rights but If you remember Raymond Davis, a CIA contractor, ignited a major diplomatic crisis in Pakistan after killing two men in 2011, raising questions about human rights, diplomatic immunity, and justice when he was set free by Pakistani authorities after paying Diyya.

The cases of Sam Jones and Raymond Davis—though vastly different in nature—both highlight the complex intersection of money, power , legal consequences, public outrage, and ethical concerns.

Despite the differences, both incidents led to government interventions, public backlash, and legal maneuvering. Comparing these cases sheds light on how economic status of nations is critical in law enforcement and justice systems.

While Sam Jones and Raymond Davis found themselves at the center of international controversy, the nature of their violations was fundamentally different. Jones sparked global outrage by taking a baby wombat from its mother while filming content in Australia. Her actions, seen as a violation of wildlife protection laws, led to public condemnation and legal scrutiny. Though she claimed innocence, Australian authorities launched an investigation and reviewed her visa status, prompting her to leave the country before facing any formal charges.

Raymond Davis, on the other hand, was involved in a far more serious and violent incident. While stationed in Lahore, Pakistan, he shot and killed two men, claiming they attempted to rob him. Unlike Jones, who was merely condemned online and by government officials, Davis was arrested and charged with double murder. His case quickly escalated into a major diplomatic crisis between the U.S. and Pakistan, as the U.S. claimed he had diplomatic immunity and demanded his release. The Pakistani public, however, saw him as a CIA operative who had unlawfully killed two citizens, leading to widespread protests and demands for justice.

While Jones faced no formal trial or legal penalties, Davis was eventually released through a controversial settlement. The U.S. government paid $2.4 million in blood money to the victims’ families, exploiting a legal provision in Islamic law that allows for compensation in murder cases. His release was seen by many as an example of American diplomatic power overriding local justice systems.

In Raymond Davis’s case, the U.S. government actively pressured Pakistan to release him, arguing he had diplomatic immunity. The matter escalated into a full-blown diplomatic crisis, leading to negotiations involving blood money.

Australia acted swiftly, condemning Jones’s actions and reviewing her visa status. The government treated it as an issue of wildlife protection.

Pakistan, in contrast, faced domestic and international pressure. The public demanded Davis be prosecuted, while the U.S. exerted diplomatic force to secure his release. Pakistan’s government ultimately allowed his release through diyya (blood money), a solution grounded in Islamic law.Davis’s victims were Pakistani citizens, and their families had the right to justice and accountability. However, diplomatic pressure led to an out-of-court settlement. The use of blood money was controversial—while legal under Islamic law, many Pakistanis saw it as U.S. impunity. The case raised questions about whether powerful nations can bypass justice systems in weaker countries.

Sam Jones Case highlights the importance of protecting wildlife from exploitation by social media influencers and tourists.Many argued that Jones’s actions were ethically wrong and caused emotional distress to both the baby wombat and its mother. The backlash emphasized that animal rights should be taken as seriously as human rights, especially when endangered species are involved.

Legal Accountability Should Be Equal for All.Whether it’s wildlife laws or criminal laws, justice should apply regardless of nationality or influence.Davis walked free due to political negotiations, while Jones left Australia in fear of consequences.

Raymond Davis’s case was a human rights issue involving international politics and it shows how justice is not always applied equally, especially when powerful nations intervene.

Ultimately, whether it’s protecting innocent lives or preserving wildlife, governments and societies must ensure that rights—both human and animal—are respected, enforced, and upheld, regardless of nationality or influence.