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

低风险
23%
您接下来想去哪里？
与朋友和家人分享您的结果。
投票 评论 (15)
或者，更深入地探索这个职业...
自动化风险
计算出的
18%
(最小风险)
投票
27%
(低风险)
Average: 23%
劳动力需求
增长
3.4%
到2033年
工资
$148,910
或每小时 $71.59
体积
24,470
截至 2023
摘要
工作评分
7.0/10

人们还浏览了

律师
计算机程序员
演员
平面设计师
会计师和审计师

计算自动化风险

18% (最小风险)

最小风险（0-20%）：这一类别的职业被自动化的可能性较低，因为它们通常需要复杂的问题解决能力，创造力，强大的人际交往能力和高度的手动灵巧。这些工作通常涉及复杂的手部动作和精确的协调，使得机器难以复制所需的任务。

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18%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

以下图表在有大量投票数据时会显示。这些可视化图表展示了用户投票结果随时间的变化，提供了情感趋势的重要指示。

随着时间（每年）的情绪变化

增长

相对于其他职业，呈现适度增长。

预计"Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates"的工作空缺数量将在2033内增长3.4%

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09-2024到期.

工资

相对于其他职业，薪酬非常高。

在2023，'Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates'的年度中位数工资为$148,910，或每小时$71。

'Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates'的薪资比全国中位工资高209.8%，全国中位工资为$48,060。

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2023，在美国有24,470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6 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

Leave a comment

David Lee (极有可能) 16 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 (低) 22 days ago
Because Robots cant understand and have empathy, only logic
0 0 Reply
Exactlyyyy (没有机会) 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 (不确定) 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 (没有机会) 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 (不确定) 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 (极有可能) 3 years ago
At least a robot will be impartial and cannot be bribed
0 0 Reply
marc (低) 3 years ago
Sentencing is grounded on choice.
0 0 Reply
K (低) 4 years ago
small chance because when judges will be automated then lawyer need to be automated
0 0 Reply
Darp (没有机会) 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 (极有可能) 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 (极有可能) 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

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。