As for apportionment of responsibility, I strongly agree that it's very important for social justice - but justice itself is largely irrelevant to eliminating social problems,
I completely disagree. To the contrary, I'd suggest that cultural acceptance of victim-blaming type mentalities rather tends to reinforce in the minds of wrongdoers that their active wrongdoing involves less culpability than it truly does. Consider the treatment of women in countries like the United States where formal legal equality is for the most part the norm, and where we at least pay lip service to the notion that women who go to certain places or dress a certain way aren't "asking" to be raped. Where we don't pretend that wearing the "wrong" clothing constitutes assumption of the risk, women's freedoms and movements are relatively less restricted by cultural convention. Conversely, in countries that adhere to religious norms holding women responsible for their rapists' behavior, unsurprisingly, we see that women are mistreated in countless other contexts as well, and that they "choose" greater restrictions to their own freedoms essentially out of a self-preservation instinct.
Victim blaming -- and the attendant conflation of the distinct concepts of foreseeability and causation -- normalizes the wrongdoers and puts the cultural onus on those at risk to engage in ultimately impotent behaviors to protect themselves. Why impotent? You yourself noted that some amount of wrongdoing is inevitable. But now, on top of the unfortunate fact of wrongdoing, we've also created a culture in which innocent people are expected (and thereby de facto required) to restrict their own lifestyles and behavior, because we have decided to hold people responsible for avoiding their own inevitable victimization -- rather than do our part, collectively, to minimize its occurrence, we've opted for the psychological narcotic of shifting blame from perpetrators to victims, in order to ease our own uncomfortable feelings of vulnerability.
There is little blame to be had by the woman assaulted while walking down the sidewalk in a well-to-do neighborhood, on the other hand if she makes a habit of strolling through dark alleys in a bad part of town without means of defense... As horrible as it feels to say so, there is a certain element of reaping what you sow. That is not to say that the assailant shouldn't still be punished just as hard as if they had assaulted her in a full church or something, but *she* bears an additional level of responsibility for the event as well, and loses much of her claim to sympathy from society as a result.
Even leaving untouched the host of unpalatable classist implications in your comment, exactly what has the second woman "sown"? And why on earth would you deem her undeserving of sympathy? Have you never done something unsafe in your life? And don't play the "I'd accept it if something unspeakable happened to me" card, because it's the rhetorical equivalent of a null hypothesis put forth as an affirmative factual statement in the absence of usable data.
If you've done something unsafe, unless you're an extremely irrational person (and if you are, there's no point in trying to have a discussion with you anyway), you did that unsafe thing because you performed a risk calculation in your head and concluded that the risk of [bad thing] occurring was sufficiently low as not to override the value to you of doing [unsafe thing]. Thus, you're in essence suggesting that, instead of encouraging us all to behave as rational actors, our culture ought instead to inculcate a fear of shame to override our rational impulses when the risk of certain kinds of victimization are thrown into the calculus. Why would you prefer to live in a society in which people make decisions based primarily on fear instead of logic?