概述
自动化风险
2. 用户投票
3. 增长
工资
5. 体积
描述
资源
评论

法官，地方法官，和司法官员

自动化风险
计算出的
21%
风险等级
投票
27%
根据 286 票的投票结果
劳动力需求
增长
-0.6%
到2032年
工资
$151,030
或每小时 $72.60
体积
28,230
截至 2022
摘要
工作评分
6.4/10

想在您的网站上显示这个摘要吗？嵌入代码：

投票
评论 (12)

自动化风险

21% (低风险)

低风险（21-40%）：这个级别的工作面临的自动化风险较低，因为它们需要技术和以人为中心的技能的混合。

有关这个分数是什么以及如何计算的更多信息可在这里找到。

工作中的一些非常重要的品质很难实现自动化：

  • 社会洞察力

工作中的一些相当重要的品质难以自动化：

  • 谈判

  • 原创性

  • 说服

用户投票

在接下来的二十年内，实现全自动化的可能性为27%。

我们的访客投票表示，这个职业被自动化的可能性很低。 这个评估进一步得到了通过计算得出的自动化风险等级的支持，该等级预计有21%的机会实现自动化。

你认为自动化的风险是什么？

法官，地方法官，和司法官员在未来20年内被机器人或人工智能取代的可能性有多大？






情感

以下图表会在有大量投票数据可以呈现有意义的数据时包含在内。这些视觉表示显示了用户投票结果随时间的变化，提供了对情绪趋势的重要指示。

随着时间（每年）的情绪变化

增长

相对于其他职业，增长非常缓慢。

预计到2032，"Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates"职位的空缺数量将减少0.6%。

总就业人数和预计的职位空缺

* 根据劳工统计局的数据，该数据涵盖了从2021到2031的期间。
更新的预测将在09-2023到期.

工资

相对于其他职业，薪酬非常高。

在2022，'Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates'的年度中位数工资为$151,030，或每小时$72。

'Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates'的薪资比全国中位工资高226.1%，全国中位工资为$46,310。

随着时间推移的工资

* 来自美国劳工统计局的数据

体积

与其他职业相比，就业机会的下限范围较低。

截至2022，在美国有28,230人被雇佣为'Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates'。

这代表了全国就业劳动力的大约< 0.001%

换句话说，大约每5 千人中就有1人被雇佣为“Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates”。

工作描述

在法庭上仲裁、提供咨询、审判，或执行司法公正。可能根据政府法规或判刑指南对刑事案件中的被告进行判刑。可能决定民事案件中被告的责任。也可能主持婚礼仪式。

SOC Code: 23-1023.00

资源

如果您正在考虑开始新的职业生涯，或者想要换工作，我们已经为您创建了一个方便的工作搜索工具，它可能会帮助您找到那个完美的新角色。

在您的本地区搜索工作岗位

评论

留下评论

Y (不确定)说
I think it really just depends on our ethics. We could either go dystopic or continue to be semi-nice humans.
Jul 06, 2022 at 02:45 上午
Rei (没有机会)说
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.
Apr 20, 2022 at 01:22 下午
I ate your burger that you left in the fridge (不确定)说
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.
Aug 18, 2021 at 05:10 下午
N (Small Chance)说
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.
May 28, 2021 at 02:10 下午
john (极有可能)说
At least a robot will be impartial and cannot be bribed
May 07, 2021 at 04:18 上午
marc (低)说
Sentencing is grounded on choice.
Apr 28, 2021 at 06:13 下午
K (低)说
small chance because when judges will be automated then lawyer need to be automated
Sep 05, 2020 at 09:11 上午
Darp (没有机会)说
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?
Jan 29, 2020 at 07:48 下午
Judgemental (极有可能)说
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.
Sep 23, 2019 at 08:32 下午
jac说
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.
May 28, 2019 at 10:45 下午
Elliott (极有可能)说
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.
Apr 21, 2019 at 10:34 上午
Legal Services (Extremely unlikely)说
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.
Aug 06, 2019 at 10:25 上午

关于这个职业请留下您的评论

此网站受到reCAPTCHA和Google的隐私政策以及服务条款的保护。

人们还浏览了

律师
计算机程序员
演员
会计师和审计师
学前教师，小学教师，初中教师，高中教师，特殊教育教师