The first thing that pops up is that you're -- I don't mean OP by "you" in this context -- are comparing property to a person. Secondly, there is no benefit to leaving a wallet out on the street; people often believe there is a benefit of drinking alcohol.

Thirdly, and probably most importantly, by putting an impetus on a victim we are effectively forcing him or her to act a certain way. With hypothetical wallet-theft-victims that's probably OK because it's asking them to not leave a wallet for people to steal. It's not that big of a request, and the victim generally doesn't suffer that much harm. For rape we're asking the victim to not put him- or her- self in a compromising position where people can be near them. It's an unrealistic expectation. In no other crime do we ask "was the victim vulnerable" and then blame them for that as if their victimization is deserved. And the harm is more serious than inconvenience or losing some money.

In other words, it's a shitty analogy because the things aren't analogous.