Broken Arrow Brothers: A Criminological Analysis

One of the most heinous familicide cases in American history occurred in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma in 2015. Two brothers, aged 16 and 18, tortured and killed their parents and three of their five siblings. The older of the brothers, Robert, has been widely considered to be the mastermind of the murder plot and coerced his younger brother into helping him,” (Youngman & Jensen, 2018, p. 1). Both brothers did receive multiple life sentences in the trial that concluded in 2018.

Robert had plead guilty in 2016, and the younger brother Michael was tried separately (“Michael Bever, Okla. teen, guilty of fatally stabbing parents, 3 younger siblings,” 2018). In fact, half of the jurors in the younger brother’s trial “sent the judge a letter asking that Michael Bever get the chance to go free one day,” (Silman, 2018, p. 1). The Broken Arrow case shows how two brothers who collaborated on the same crime operated with vastly different motives and intent.

Given how horrific the case is, it may be easy to dismiss the psychological issues and environmental causes precipitating the familicide. However, criminologists need to thoroughly assess the situation, taking into account the multiple interrelated variables that led up to the crime. The Broken Arrow incident showcases the importance of environmental cues, including child abuse but also broader social norms embedded in the society.

Younger brother Michael does seem to have acted more out of coercion, if not outright fear of his older brother, which, had he been an adult, would have made him seem even more culpable given the lack of evidence showcasing mental illness in his case. The fact that Michael was only sixteen at the time of the crime demonstrates the relevance of a separate juvenile justice system, suggesting that trying juveniles as adults can indeed prove problematic.

“Adolescents are more likely to kill because the normal turbulence of adolescence runs up against constraints they perceive have been placed upon them in a setting of limited alternatives,” (Heide, 2016, p. 1). The main factors to consider in the Broken Arrow case include the unique features of juvenile familicide, the role of child abuse and related trauma; and the role mental illness plays in cases like these.

Motives The Broken Arrow case bears almost all the signs of a typical familicide, which is an overwhelmingly male phenomenon, as well as a primarily white phenomenon (Fegadel & Heide, 2016; Whiteley, Terrell, & Bodman, 2016). The Bever brothers were in fact white males, albeit slightly younger than the average perpetrator in familicide cases: which is 26 years of age (Fegadel & Heide, 2016). However, juvenile perpetrators are not uncommon (Fegadel & Heide, 2016).

While guns and other firearms are the most commonly used weapons in familicide cases, research based on the National Incident-Based Reporting System shows firearms predominated as murder weapons in these incidents; however, when a biological mother was one of the victims, offenders used more diverse methods,” (Fegadel & Heide, 2016, p. 6). In the Broken Arrow case, the brothers used diverse methods with the main murder weapon being knives.

Interestingly, the brothers had ordered guns and ammunition “to be delivered to their home the day after their family was killed,” (Couri, 2016, p. 1). The brothers had, however, been plotting to kill their parents long before, with Robert apparently “planning to kill his parents since he was 13,” using weapons like knives and axes (Couri, 2016, p. 1). Robert claimed he wanted to execute the plan before the arrival of the shipment of ammunition because he “didn’t want any interference,” (Silman, 2016, p. 1).

By interference, Robert may have meant his own learning curve with regards to mastering the use of guns, which they had not had access to before, or he could have meant that the shipment might have drawn attention to them when it arrived in the mail. Familicide cases are “usually committed in the victim’s house,” as with this case (Bourget, Gagne & Labelle, 2007, p. 306). In addition to actually stabbing their family members, both brothers tortured them.

Most notably, younger brother Michael had initiated the turn of events that culminated in the five-person murder by luring his then-13 year-old sister into their room. Robert then “tried to slit her throat,” but she escaped and ran to help the other brothers and sisters. Michael then chased his sister down and choked her, but remarkably she survived and became one of the primary witnesses in the case.

Moreover, Michael lured the youngest siblings out of their rooms by “telling them he was in danger, and then he stabbed them to death,” (Silman, 2018 p. 1). Michael’s actions during the rather drawn-out incident seems to suggest that he did not have second thoughts, and deserves to be considered as equally culpable as his older brother in the familicide. As Silman (2018) also points out, both brothers participated in the stabbing of the parents.

One of the things that sets apart the Broken Arrow case from other familicide cases is the presence of two perpetrators. Cases involving multiple perpetrators like this one are rare (Fegadel & Heide, 2016). Premeditation is another feature of the Broken Arrow murders. Like most familicide cases, the Broken Arrow incident was premeditated (Mailloux, 2014). Premeditation took place not in a matter of months; the brothers had been fantasizing about killing for years. “Robert Bever said he’d been planning to kill his parents since he was 13,” (Couri, 2016, p. 1).

The specific details of their familicide would have been hashed out over the months prior to the event, as documents entered into evidence at court showed that the brothers “planned the murders for weeks or months,” (Silman, 2018, p. 1). Both brothers had demonstrated a “fascination with murder,” and “admired mass shooters,” (Couri, 2016, p. 1). The Bever parents apparently knew of their sons’ morbid fascination with murder, but neither parent seemed to care.

The mother said “they were simply boys being boys,” and the father dismissed their homicidal ideations entirely (Couri, 2016, p. 1). The reaction of the parents to their eldest sons’ cognitions denotes the level of neglect the Bever brothers experienced, and which contributed to their antisocial attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. For example, “the brothers said there were too many people in the world,” (Couri, 2016 , p. 1).

Robert told one of the detectives in the case “if he killed enough people, he would eventually kill someone who was not contributing to society, which would be a good thing,” (Couri, 2016, p. 1). Delusional thinking seems to be one of the key factors, at least in Robert’s psyche. “Robert Bever told detectives he admired serial killers and mass shooters and said he believed killing more than one person would make him God-like,’ (Couri, 2016, p. 1).

Moreover, Robert demonstrated inappropriate affect throughout the investigation, such as having “laughed and chuckled frequently while telling the story, becoming mildly exciting at parts,” (Couri, 2016, p. 1). Likewise, Salinger states Michael “appeared to be laid back and mildly excited to tell the story,” (p. 1). Robert did reveal a shocking change, though, and “broke down in tears when shown a picture of one of the bloodied murder weapons,” saying in court: “That's a lot of blood...I'm sorry.

I don't know what I was thinking,’” (Youngman & Jensen, 2018, p. 1). Interestingly, it was Michael’s defense that was based on mental health and less so Robert’s, given the latter openly and proudly confessed to the crime (Querry, 2018). Given Robert’s state of mind and attitude towards the crime and murder in general, it would seem that mental illness was the most important factor in the familicide. The brothers’ mental health issues might have stemmed from an unusual, and certainly abusive upbringing.

According to Salinger (2016), the sister who got away reported that their father had “often thrown his kids and verbally abused them,” (p. 1). She stated that the “father threw the kids across the room in the past when he was angry,” (Couri, 2016, p.1). The same sister also “witnessed one fight between her mom and dad in which her dad threw her and hit her head on the wall,” (Couri, 2016, p. 1).

In addition to the physical and verbal abuse, it also seemed as if the parents had kept their kids away from school and prevented them from making friends. “None of the children have ever been to school, and none of them made any friends,” (Couri, 2016, p. 1). Research shows that “prior exposure to abandonment, rejection, abuse, and violence in their childhood years, which may have resulted in poor coping skill development,” (Mailloux, 2014, p. 921-922).

Antagonism and intense hatred of their parents led to the boys’ distorted thinking in other ways. For example, Michael claimed they “liked firearms because his parents hated them,” (Couri, 2016, p. 1). Research on familicide patterns shows that “the origin of the primary emotional upset for the killers tended to be interpersonal conflicts,” (Tosini, 2017, p. 1). The boys had long expressed a desire to kill their parents, a desire that did not dissipate over time.

Why they also included their siblings in the equation is not something that makes sense, unless it is viewed under the lens of mental health and mental illness. “A parent-victim who mistreats the child excessively may push the child to the point of explosive violence,” (Bourget, Gagne & Labelle, 2007, p. 306).

Parental relationships were certainly to blame in this case, as “a son who kills his mother is usually an unmarried, unambitious young man with an intense relationship with his mother, a feeling of social inferiority, and an absent or passive father,” (Bourget, Gagne & Labelle, 2007, p. 306). Robert is currently “on medication and has been diagnosed with major depressive disorder, PTSD and borderline personality disorder,” (Youngman & Jensen, 2018, p. 1).

The most common diagnosis in cases of familicide is schizophrenia, but depressive and psychotic disorders are also implicated (Bourget, Gagne & Labelle, 2007, p. 306). Mental health issues and previous domestic violence experiences are factors shared in common by almost all similar instances of familicide (Whiteley, M., Terrell, N. & Bodman, D.A. (2016), p. 1). Desire for Fame A desire for fame, recognition, and respect drove the boys’ to murder.

It is likely that the intense, irrational desire for fame via murder could be construed as a distorted transfer of their need for their parents’ love, affection, and respect. Apparently “Robert Bever wanted to be famous for being a serial killer,” (Silman, 2018, p. 1). His motive was “to gain fame as a serial killer,” (Salinger, 2016, p. 1). The brothers apparently wanted to keep on killing “so that they can go on some kind of cross-country crime spree,” (News Corp Australia Network, 2018, p. 1).

However, it is unlikely that a desire fame alone would have led to the familicide; mental health and a history of abuse is what created the delusional thinking leading to their twisted association between love, fame, and murder. Different Strokes The two brothers were tried differently in part because Robert confessed instantly and testified that he was the mastermind. “Robert Bever was the.