I'm still puzzled by the assumption that somehow the guilt of a perpetrator of a crime - any crime - is somehow reduced or "shared" if the victim is seen as having acted in a way that made that crime more likely to take place.

Oddly enough, considering what I have said before, I do agree with the sentiment. But (you knew there was one didn't you:-) ) ...

1. In the case of rape, if the victim is shown to be complicit in any way, a clever solicitor will get the penalty reduced or, worse still, get the case dismissed.

2. Because the rapist will always know that he can use that defence, every case of rape will have that test applied. Even where it is blatantly untrue. This will make
   a) The victim less likely to report it and
   b) The victim feel even worse when a clever solictor gets going

3. In the case of car crime and robbery without violence if the victim is accused of complicity then there is little harm done. In the case of rape there can be far more serious consequences.

While the comparison between car theft and rape can serve as an example that is as far as the analogy can go. Stealing a vehicle and stealing someones self respect are miles apart.

Does that explain my feelings on this particular aspect any better?

Cheers

DeG