Victimology, the study of the victim, emerged in the second half of the 20th century as a branch of criminology. Until then criminology was exclusively focused on crime and its perpetrators. But since most crimes are committed against a victim/target the study of the latter offered a holistic approach. It also offered the prospect of transforming the static criminological theories into dynamic theories incorporating the interactions between victim and victimizer and the situational dynamics in confrontational victimizations. The beginnings of Victimology were purely theoretical focusing on the victims of specific crimes, their role and their eventual contribution to the genesis of the crime. In the 1970’s the micro approach that characterized early Victimology was eclipsed by a macro approach aimed at assessing the volume of victimization, particularly hidden and unreported victimization. Victimization surveys became quite popular and were carried out regionally, nationally and transnationally. They allowed researchers to collect a vast amount of data on crime victims and yielded some very interesting as well as some unexpected findings. The last decades of the 20th century witnessed a major transformation in Victimology. The Victimology of the act gave way to a Victimology of action. The ideological transformation of victimology from the study of the victim into the art of helping victims, the over-identification with crime victims, and the missionary zeal with which the ’interests’ of those victims are defended and pursued are quite manifest in victimology conferences and symposia. The missionary zeal exhibited by many victimologists on behalf and in the interest of crime victims is fraught with danger. First, it is jeopardizing the quality of scholarship and the scholarly stance of the discipline of victimology. As a result, victimology is increasingly being regarded as a humanitarian and ideological movement rather than a scientific discipline. Secondly, missionary zeal and partisan stance are moving criminal law and the criminal justice system into a punitive, retributive direction. There is also a third danger. Since the victim lobby has chosen to focus on traditional crimes rather than white-collar crime or acts of abuse of power, there has been a distinct shift of focus in research to the former type at the expense of the latter. Victims of white-collar crime, corporate crime and abuse of power have once again been relegated to the shadow. More serious still is yet another danger. In the diligent quest for victims’ rights there seems to be a manifest or latent willingness to sacrifice offenders’ rights. A false contest is thus created between the rights of both groups. So where is victimology heading ? Science and partisanship are incompatible. Once researchers take sides or become advocates they lose their neutrality, their objectivity and their credibility. This is a fundamental principle that should be seriously considered by those well-intentioned criminologists and victimologists who have adopted the cause of crime victims and who claim to speak on their behalf. The future of victimology will thus depend on its ability to return back to its original scientific mission, to shed its ideological mantle and to resume its role as a scholarly discipline and as an integral part of criminology. It is the need to separate research from action and science from activism that dictates that victimology be separated from victim policy. To restore its neutrality and to regain and maintain its scientific integrity victimology will have to detach itself from politics and ideology.