Answ: Affirmative, because:
It belongs to that category of moral crimes for which the death penalty substantially applies (cf. Junius)
The reason annexed for it (Deut 22:26) holds good in all cases
Of Deut. 22:28-29
This verse was the reason I would have previously answered the question in the negative, but I now see differently. Most modern apologetics websites argue these verses refers to consensual sex, and of this I am now convinced. The reason are 1) the word used is not the usual word for rape 2) “they are found” seems to imply mutual guilt.
This interpretation was held by Gill:
she yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as ( Deuteronomy 22:25 ) where a different word from this is there used; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; yet this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her, and so different from what was obtained by enticing words, professions of love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in ( Exodus 22:16 Exodus 22:17) but not without her consent.
Some of the Reformed do, however, dissent from this interpretation and thus would answer the question in the negative (as, for instance, John Cotton)
Support of the affirmative from Reformed sources:
Gill on Deut 22:26 – as when a man comes unawares upon another, and lays hold on him, and kills him, being stronger than he, and none to help; so is the case of a woman laid hold on by a man in a field, and ravished by him, where no help could be had; and depriving a woman of her chastity is like taking away a man's life; from this passage Maimonides concludes, that impurities, incests, and adulteries, are equal to murder, to capital cases relating to life and death.
This is actually all I have so far so I guess I'm pretty much just Gillposting (based). It’s pretty strange to me how rarely they bring up rape (as I have read much but have not encountered it even in passing) but nevertheless I think it clearly fits in the category of those crimes the general equity of which necessitates death, even if this wasn’t always explicitly spelled out (and of course, there would’ve been disagreement anyways as a result of differing interpretations of Deut. 22:28-29)
He’s too late imo for consideration, but see also the quote from James R. Wilson here: https://purelypresbyterian.com/2015/08/20/the-judicial-law-general-equity-vs-particular-equity/
Addendum: Johannes Piscator's reasoning about robbery involving violence and therefore being able to be punished with the death penalty would seem to apply here as well assuming the common interpretation at that time that Deuteronomy 22:28=29 speaks of violence. In this way, although he doesn't specifically address the issue, he may be seen as a supporter of this view by parody of argumentation.
