Severe injury to the stomach and head generates the same monetary penalty, which indicates that they are seen as equal in terms of losses. However, for an injury to the head, there is no extra penalty required for physician's pay. This is troubling as a head injury of this severity would most certainly give cause for medical treatment to at the very least treat the wound (in the likely case that there were no treatments for psychological or neurological damages). Perhaps they assumed that the person would succumb to their wounds in this case, but taking that perspective makes it difficult to rationalize them as equivalent losses. It is likely that an injury to the ribs or stomach might also cause the death of the individual during this time but it is strange that there is an acknowledgement of an attempt for treatment.

It is interesting how the penalty for rape (of women) and assault and robbery (of men) has the same monetary penalty, which implies that these offenses were viewed as equal in terms of losses. In both cases, the way the law is written takes into account two primary factors: bodily harm and loss of property. I would assume that in the case of rape that the reason the penalty is the same as assault and robbery is that there is some implied economic value lost as a result of that offense.