Rape is bad, murder is worse, and rape/murder is the worst, and it happens a lot.
Technically rape+murder is only the 2nd worst.
Torture+murder is usually drastically worse.
A really passionate, sadistic torturer can do stuff to a person that go many orders of magnitude beyond even the misery of getting raped (and then still kill you, weeks or months or years later, after torturing you in their torture dungeon for that whole time period) so you still end up dead at the end, just like with the rape-killer. Except with the torture-killer, it can be so bad that you'd be actively hoping to die the whole time, whereas with the rapist, the majority of people would be hoping not to die.
For people who aren't familiar with just how bad torture can be, keep in mind that there are quite a lot of sadists out there who like to do things like stick white-hot fire pokers into your flesh, and stab your genitals and eyeballs with ice picks and peel all your skin off and crushes your fingertips with pliers one by one, and drill into your teeth with powerdrills and all that sort of stuff. Anyone who thinks rape would be worse than that is just plain incorrect. I'm sure there are a lot of people who would disagree since it is poetically/politically more correct to do the whole psychological-aspect-is-worse thing (it's not, btw, torture would surpass it even in that aspect as well, not that it matters, since the physical pain would drastically surpass even the psychological pain, when it comes to really severe full blown torture).
I think the reason people tend to incorrectly rank rape/molestation as being "worse" than murder (let alone torture or torture+murder) is the variance-of-badness concept. As in, with "mere" murder, we can imagine some percentage of murderers who grew up in a violent gang culture, or got into some heat-of-the-moment thing at a young age in a violent situation or something, or peer pressured by some armed robbery crew and panicked and blew the shopkeeper's brains out during a robbery or something like that, where, if the person has changed a lot over a span of years/decades in the aftermath, and isn't part of that culture or cohort-situation anymore, we can occasionally imagine a reformed murderer who had thought deeply about ethics and non-violent living while doing their time in prison, and just isn't really a "bad person" anymore by the time they get out. Whereas with the rapists/molesters, we tend not to think of them in the same sort of way, generally thinking of it as more of a 100.0% truly-bad-apples-to-the-permanent-core sort of thing, where they can never change, or at least not change enough, as a person, no matter how long they spend in prison, that we'd ever be cool with them later on when they got out. (This is probably logically incorrect btw, since, in the same way there are some situations-of-murder scenarios where they can become a different person as they get older and become philosophically different as they age, presumably there are also some percentage (not the majority, but still some percentage) of rapists who actually go through similar changes as people. Child molesters of the pedophile variety are arguably different, in that they can never change in regards to what they are sexually attracted to (the same way a gay person can't magically stop being intrinsically gay just by "willing it away", but even with them, arguably some percentage could contemplate ethics enough as they got older and force of willpower types of training to where they simply really wouldn't do anything anymore. The problem, of course, being that the rest of the public would have no way of knowing which ones went through that sort of philosophical/willpower transformation, and which ones simply claimed to, or even incorrectly genuinely thought they did, but actually didn't. So, I think the public would tend to think of them as the worst of the worst, for that reason, even though a severe torture-murderer sadist would be quite a few orders of magnitude worse (people simply forget that those even exist, since they don't make the news headlines nearly as often, since they don't generally leave live victims nearly as often, and even when they are simply caught serial-killer style, people forget about the torture aspect and focus on the kill-count aspect, since that's the part that makes the headlines, and they forget to read the actual in-depth aspect of the torture stuff they did, which often went way beyond even the murder part).
So yea, basically the general public would probably rank it as:
Whereas in reality the real rankings should probably be: