Who do you think was the most despicable?

i think you could break it down to this

#3 - i kind of feel bad for since he "lost" his son whom he loves and just lets his feelings influence his judgement

#7 - he is just ignorant and does not show any interest in the case

#10 - he is just racist but thats (probably) due to the time he grew up. i am not trying to defend his racial slurs but he is just stupid and therefore just can´t help it

well, I would have a slightly different take,

I didn't like #9 (I think that was the old man's number)

He seemed like a smug know-it-all who managed to dismiss two eyewitnesses on rank psychobabble speculation.

He seemed to think witnesses will walk into a courtroom and testify against someone just to be important.

I did testify once in a trial, and I have served on a jury, and man, the truth is just the opposite with me and with the other jurors I served with. All the jurors I have served with really seemed to want to be careful not to ruin a man's life unless they were certain he was guilty. And both of my trials ended in acquittals.

And, by the way, I am about as old as juror #9 was, and so have just as much life experience.

maybe 7, but they were all kinda nasty.

Have to be #3.

#8, because he's a great manipulator who twists the evidence with conjecture.

Juror 8 is the most despicable, because he distorted legal concepts, violated protocols and harangued other jurors into taking up his position.

For example, it was never true that #7 switched his vote to not guilty for the ball game. He never discussed the ball game except when the jurors took a break to talk about their personal affairs. The movie manipulates audiences into thinking that's why he switched his vote, by having another juror accuse him of it.

He switched his vote for the same reason anyone would in a circumstance like this. Juror 8 was determined to just keep violating protocols and making manipulative arguments to make his case, so #7 decided to just give him what he wanted than waste time. I've been in situations like this in real life, where a person is just determined to argue an irrational point until they're blue in the face or wear you down. What you do in that case is go, "Okay, you win."

Another example: putting The Stockbroker character (EG Marshall) "on trial," to blow his argument that the defendant was guilty because he couldn't remember what movie he saw that night. What's so stupid about that tactic is that it actually proves his point. The EG Marshall "fumbled" in recalling with precision what movie he'd seen days before but he remembered enough to where another juror could correct him. The defendant couldn't recall anything HOURS before.

What Juror #8 does is a subtle form of "tu quoque", as well as "false equivalence." In other words, what he does is argue in so many words, "How dare you hold it against the defendant for not remember what movie he saw the night of the movie, when you can remember what movie you saw days before but inaccurately."