So, in the this one, is the argument that if the alternative to the death penalty is life without parole, that the jury needs to be told that so they don't think that if they don't vote to execute the prisoner, that he might be let out on parole...so if they feel that he can't be "fixed" that they don't feel like their only alternative is the death penalty...am I understanding that correctly? Then that makes total sense to me.
As for the oil rig one, I know how complex employment and compensation contracts can me, so I simply don't have enough information to have an opinion either way beyond the surface-level concepts.