Both cases I sat in completely vindicated the system. First one was a bit traumatic (rape), it took several days of fascinating cross-examination to nail a verdict. The second case we all ‘assumed guilt’ from the off( the defendant was already in prison for something else he’d done since and looked/sounded like low-life scum), but the evidence was overwhelming in terms of proving him not guilty.
Pretty sure the dickhead you had should have been reported by you/other jurors for expressing those views - would likely have been removed from the jury.
A similar experience for me as a juror in two week long cases, the jury system worked brilliantly. There was no clearcut evidence such as CCTV. Instead we carefully assessed the evidence to hand including witnesses questioned in court and relying on excellent technical direction from the judges. If there were one or two hang’em or “let’s just get this done” initially bored jurors, they very much and naturally edged to one side. Compelled to see it out properly. A charismatic vicar was appointed chairperson, almost all of us made worthwhile contributions throughout. Where in one case we were at a split verdict log jam, we carefully went through what we knew and the judges directions on law over and over until we reached unanimous verdicts.