Laws discourage certain behaviours. It doesn't stop them.

Regarding victim blaming, obviously this person isn't to blame, but it seems that even suggestions to be cautious are seen as "victim blaming".

When you tell a kid to look to both sides when crossing the road even if it's green, you're not blaming them for a possible accident. It's just that sometimes people ignore traffic lights. And when you tell someone not to give their pin or send a device with sensitive content for repair, you're not blaming them. You're just telling them to be careful because sometimes stuff like this happens.

One, the correlation between "do a crime" and "do the time" is quite low. Look at the stats for sexual assault (0.25%), robbery (0.2%), and assault and battery (0.3%): https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system

Even for murder, the US's clearance rate is only about half.

But even if the correlation were somehow perfect, it still wouldn't eliminate it. People just have a hard time believing in the consequences of actions until they experience them. I couldn't count the number of times I've gone through the "ooh fire pretty" -> " ow fire hot" loop in various ways.

So this is thing where we need defense in depth. We need solutions in criminal law and civil law and provider regulation and product design and user education and culture shifting. Each one of those will be fallible, but each one will bring the rate down. With enough work we can at least make the bad outcomes rare.

It is both. A secure design would not allow this to happen. But when it does, the perpetrator should be punished severely.