Domare, Magistratdomare och Magistrater

Låg risk
23%
Vart vill du åka härnäst?
Dela dina resultat med vänner och familj.
Eller, utforska detta yrke i större detalj...
RISK FÖR AUTOMATISERING
BERÄKNAD
18%
(Minimal risk)
UNDERSÖKNING
27%
(Låg risk)
Average: 23%
ARBETSMARKNADSBEHOV
TILLVÄXT
3,4%
från år 2033
LÖNER
148 910 $
eller 71,59 $ per timme
Volym
24 470
från och med 2023
SAMMANFATTNING
JOBBPOÄNG
7,0/10

Personer tittade också på

Beräknad automatiseringsrisk

18% (Minimal risk)

Minimal risk (0-20%): Yrken i denna kategori har en låg sannolikhet att automatiseras, eftersom de vanligtvis kräver komplex problemlösning, kreativitet, starka mellanmänskliga färdigheter och en hög grad av manuell skicklighet. Dessa jobb involverar ofta komplexa handrörelser och exakt koordination, vilket gör det svårt för maskiner att replikera de nödvändiga uppgifterna.

Mer information om vad detta betyg är, och hur det beräknas finns tillgängligt här.

Vissa mycket viktiga egenskaper hos jobbet är svåra att automatisera:

  • Social Perceptiveness - Social Förståelse

Vissa ganska viktiga egenskaper hos jobbet är svåra att automatisera:

  • Förhandling

  • Originalitet

  • Övertalning

Användarundersökning

27% procent chans för full automatisering inom de närmaste två decennierna

Våra besökare har röstat att det är en låg chans att detta yrke kommer att automatiseras. Detta bedömning stöds ytterligare av den beräknade automationsrisknivån, som uppskattar 18% chans för automation.

Vad tror du är risken med automatisering?

Vad är sannolikheten att Domare, Magistratdomare och Magistrater kommer att ersättas av robotar eller artificiell intelligens inom de närmaste 20 åren?






Känsla

Följande graf inkluderas där det finns en betydande mängd röster för att ge meningsfull data. Dessa visuella representationer visar användaromröstningsresultat över tid och ger en viktig indikation på sentimenttrender.

Känslor över tid (årligen)

Tillväxt

Måttlig tillväxt jämfört med andra yrken

Antalet 'Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates' lediga jobb förväntas att öka med 3,4% till 2033

Total sysselsättning och uppskattade jobböppningar

* Data från Bureau of Labor Statistics för perioden mellan 2021 och 2031
Uppdaterade prognoser beräknas 09-2024.

Löner

Mycket högt betald jämfört med andra yrken

I 2023 var den medianårliga lönen för 'Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates' 148 910 $, eller 71 $ per timme.

'Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates' betalades 209,8% högre än den nationella medianlönen, som låg på 48 060 $

Löner över tid

* Data från Byrån för arbetsstatistik

Volym

Lägre utbud av jobbmöjligheter jämfört med andra yrken

Från och med 2023 var det 24 470 personer anställda som 'Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates' inom USA.

Detta representerar cirka < 0,001% av den anställda arbetskraften i hela landet

Sagt på ett annat sätt, runt 1 av 6 tusen personer är anställda som 'Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates'.

Arbetsbeskrivning

Skiljedöma, rådgöra, döma eller administrera rättvisa i en domstol. Kan döma åtalade i brottmål enligt statens lagar eller riktlinjer för straff. Kan avgöra åtalades ansvar i civilmål. Kan utföra vigselceremonier.

SOC Code: 23-1023.00

Resurser

Om du funderar på att starta en ny karriär, eller vill byta jobb, har vi skapat ett praktiskt jobbsökverktyg som kanske kan hjälpa dig att hitta den perfekta nya rollen.

Sök jobb i ditt lokala område

Kommentarer

Leave a comment

David Lee (Mycket troligt) 18 days ago
Most of the Judges work is determining the outcome of a case, using the factual similarities with other cases verdict. This is repetitive work.
0 0 Reply
Infernus (Låg) 24 days ago
Because Robots cant understand and have empathy, only logic
0 0 Reply
Exactlyyyy (Ingen chans) 5 months ago
You need to have empathy and be humane in addition to understanding the law itself. I also dont think society would allow a computer to pass a verdict.
0 0 Reply
Y (Osäker) 2 years ago
I think it really just depends on our ethics. We could either go dystopic or continue to be semi-nice humans.
0 0 Reply
Rei (Ingen chans) 2 years ago
Unless AI can develop what you call "feeling", "empathy", and "decisiveness", it's quite hard to change how judges work. The job is not only about guilty or not, or who is right, but also about how the people around your place evaluate what is a crime and what is right.
0 0 Reply
I ate your burger that you left in the fridge (Osäker) 3 years ago
Honestly, I'm leaning towards no, but I'm already seeing some robot lawyers. And if lawyers are replaced, won't judges be replaced as well? But yet again, judges make laws. And it is a bit hard to imagine a robot making laws.
0 0 Reply
N (Small Chance) 3 years ago
I don't think judges will be replaced by AI/robots. Like someone else said, judges do not only follow laws, they also help make them. Imagine a robot help make a law, it's hard to imagine for me. I also feel that sure, technology will improve later, and robots will be more like humans, and possibly be better than many of them. But I feel like judges are in an OKAY, spot.
0 0 Reply
john (Mycket troligt) 3 years ago
At least a robot will be impartial and cannot be bribed
0 0 Reply
marc (Låg) 3 years ago
Sentencing is grounded on choice.
0 0 Reply
K (Låg) 4 years ago
small chance because when judges will be automated then lawyer need to be automated
0 0 Reply
Darp (Ingen chans) 4 years ago
Why are you argumenting the percentage with the grey area of the job? It's
an argument for why they won't be replaced in my opinion. Just imagine a drug dealer and a
person having the drug because they believe it would help their dying grandmother, how can they both serve the same sentance for possesion?
0 0 Reply
Judgemental (Mycket troligt) 5 years ago
Judges are people who have prejudices based upon experience and are unconsciously biased. The same case tried by all judges would never produce the same outcome. It’s a flawed system, and a lottery. Good luck to those who are innocent and falsely accused.
0 0 Reply
jac 5 years ago
judges dont just follow laws. they change laws and base decisions on moral grey area and circumstance. perhaps traffic court will have robot judges but i doubt we will ever see a robot in federal or supreme courts. mercy, compassion, and social understanding should never be expected from a machine.
0 0 Reply
Elliott (Mycket troligt) 5 years ago
Laws are very easy to interpret, I'm very sure the Internet already has the answer to 99.9% of all questions regarding whether something should be categorized as a felony or not. The United States has made up its mind on almost everything, I don't think judges really use their imagination to do this job, they just follow instructions as guided in the rules book.That's why I think the chances are much higher than 40%.

That's why I think the judges' probability of automation is closer to 95% than 40%, much like the accountants.
0 0 Reply
Legal Services (Extremely unlikely) 5 years ago
Laws by definition are not very easy to interpret. Hence the necessity to have lawyers and Judges deliberate in court over the interpretation of different laws and Acts and is why, for example, in Australia we have the Acts Interpretation Act.

I agree with jac. I think it's highly unlikely Judges will be replaced by robots/A.I. anytime in the near or distant future if at all not only because of the complicated nature of what their jobs entails, secondly, the human touch required to do so as jac touched upon and, thirdly, because on a deeper, more philosophical but also more tantamount level, to do so would, essentially, be surrendering our core and fundamental power as human beings to govern our own kind. If we were to hand over judiciary powers and control to A.I. we would effectively be putting mankind on the bench forever. It would tear the core fabric of our humanity and everything the human race has achieved thus far in all antiquity and hopes to achieve in all future and for those reasons and more, I believe, simply could not and would not ever happen.

So, realistically, I think the automation risk level of this particular category should be reassessed to almost zero because anyone in their right mind with any semblance of logic and understanding of the justice system couldn't possibly surmise that it could realistically be awarded a percentile score that such could happen higher than that.
0 0 Reply

Lämna ett svar om detta yrke

Denna webbplats skyddas av reCAPTCHA och Googles sekretesspolicy och användarvillkor gäller.