Did this film also intend for audiences to ask if rape is worse or even as bad as murder?

Why else (besides to make the story more dramatic) would it have two villains or antagonists in it, both male by the way, in the form of a rapist and a serial killer as well?

Even if both are wrong and one is at least more SENSITIVE overall and the film may have not totally spelled it out.

But I kind of gotten the impression that this was what the movie was asking.

And before arguments, however valid, can crop up about how the r-worded deed (sorry, and that's just ME, but I am a bit shy to type it out always) is never justified, as well as the existing victims who often spoke about it publicly or otherwise, and how murder can be at least somewhat justified...

Well... It does have merits those arguments, true. But in this film, it also involved murder of innocents, and that in itself is never justified either. Besides, although consequences of that other deed can be severe and even life threatening too at times, and sadly in our humanity, there is stigma attached to the whole issue of 'sexual violation', murder is serious enough in itself with how with it you lose a whole life.

Not to mention, SOME SPOILERS ALERT - although undeniably hurt to a degree as well, in this movie, the character of Michelle somewhat DOES manage to heal and move on from it (the sexual abuse from that perpetrator she endured a few times), and she lives as well. Even ALSO SPOILER - with the help of her son, she manages to defeat him at the end too.

But did anyone while watching the film sort of get the impression that this was what the film tried to provoke in terms of thought and persuade audiences to ask themselves as well.