That is the very definition of victim blaming. You're saying that someone who doesn't dress conservatively is basically to blame for being raped.
No I'm not, so you can stop assembling that strawman you'd like to build.
The company that doesn't invest millions in their security systems is asking to be attacked
It doesn't take millions to be reasonably secure. My home PC is reasonably secure. Took me less than 20 mins to achieve. Thanks to estate management software, the same can be done in a corporate environment. Top of the line security may cost millions, but most places neither need it or are willing to pay for it. Companies that don't take sufficient steps to be secure WILL be hacked. They just will. If you can't accept that or understand the reasoning behind it, then you don't belong around computers.
So if a company doesn't secure its network, a hacker shouldn't be prosecuted.
Nobody said that. Nobody at all.
You are specifically saying that the crime is only a crime if the victim tried to do something to prevent it
Nobody said that either.
making the punishment for a crime dependant on the victim having done something to prevent it is simply not the same thing.
And nobody suggested that either.
Your lack of ability to read and comprehend what is being written, and your shocking inability to think critically would strongly imply that my earlier hypothesis is correct: you don't belong around computers. Sorry that isn't what you'd like to hear, but it is what it is.
Crimes of violence and dishonesty are worse for individuals and worse for society as a whole, than hacking. They must always attract stronger punishments. If there's no space in jail for wannabe gangsters committing GBH, then there's no space for a hacker - whether they're intellectually curious, or simply mailicious.