Just because a crime is especially egregious doesn't mean that the accused is more guilty than any other crime. I fail to see why a rape-murder should give the accused less time to prove their innocence than just a regular murder or rape. The punishment should fit the crime obviously, a murder is more egregious than petty theft but how does society benefit from killing potentially innocent people other than revenge that politicians can boast about in their campaigns?
Oh, I don't mean cases that still hang in the air, but those which are closed-and-shut cases. The 2012 gangrape-murder in Delhi, India, was such a scenario - they found DNA evidence, evidence of gruesome rape with metal rods, a brutal murder and disposal of the body, and eye witness testimony of the boyfriend, and the entire nation in uproar. The death penalty was the only suitable verdict then - in fact, delaying it was a major reason the then-government lost power.
Then again, in India, we also had a rape in 2017, where the same thing happened with a 6 yr old Muslim child, but because the perps were lackeys of the ruling party at the center and the victim Muslim, the case was mostly forgotten within a few weeks. Doesn't help that the media was in the pockets of the ruling party too (still is).
There is an obvious merit to using the death penalty - after all, why should taxpayer money be used to fund the imprisonment of those who have already proven that they're the worst of society?
