criminal-law
Which is more severe in an aggravated assault case?
<p>Is a dislocated shoulder or broken arm bone more severe?</p>

<p>My argument  is that a dislocated  shoulder has potential for repeat dislocation  and therefore is a more aggravated lasting injury. Which is considered more severe, a broken arm bone or dislocated shoulder?</p>

<p>Assault and the possibility of "aggravated" assault will be defined by the elements defined in the legal code.  This will be different by jurisdiction.  It is unlikely that the code will get into details of how severe the assault is beyond the definition of the law.</p>

<p>In the state of Georgia, USA, the definitions of assault being aggravated have to do with one of four elements:  intent to murder, rape or rob; use of a deadly weapon; use of a strangulation device; or discharge of a weapon from inside a moving vehicle.  So "how bad" the injury is does not matter, although clearly prosecution may be treated differently for a more severe injury.</p>

<p>I am wondering if your question is regarding not necessarily guilt, but possible restitution, which in any US jurisdiction of which I am aware, would be the only criminal context where this question would have relevance. And in that case, most US courts would probably only award as restitution those direct and documented costs (i.e. medical bills, possible lost work or other expenses) that exist at the time of sentencing.</p>

<p>If your question is more about civil damages in a tort lawsuit, future losses become much more relevant. A successful argument for awarding more damages for a particular loss would likely require expert testimony.</p>

<p>Edit: regarding Andrew's suggestion, see North Carolina's statute on criminal restitution, <a href="https://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_15A/Article_81C.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">N.C.G.S. 15A-1340.34 and following</a></p>
