Surely in both cases both truths apply. The person who stole the bike was a contemptible thief with no respect for the bike owner's rights, and merits condemnation for their wrongful actions (though not as intense condemnation as the rapist, as the harm is almost certainly less). And the woman who dressed sexually provocatively while going into certain types of environment was endangering herself and was imprudent, perhaps culpably so, in not better safeguarding her own person. Criminals have a moral obligation not to commit crimes, but potential victims have a moral obligation not to be careless of their own security.

After all, when your daughter is old enough to carry a wallet, I expect you're going to teach her not to take out her money and count or sort it in public, right?