The scenario is this: the murder took place in 1950 (when the internet was non existent at all) and the perpetrator is alive but at 105 years old meaning he would've been around 29 when they killed someone but back then there's no CCTV or forensic evidence, so the case went cold.

Now, with social media: although limited, the only way is a live streamed confession from his death bed at a nursing home for a crime he's committed from a previous generation (76 years ago) admitting to their Gen Z grandchildren they killed an innocent person.

However, the evidence is expired as the body has decomposed long ago, all potential forensic clues are lost for eternity. The victim's family is deceased as this happened long ago, the only ones alive are the victim's grandchildren and descendants whom one can speak to.

The perpetrator is now someone's grandpa, however since this occurred before Gen Z were born (they can only read archived files from that era and work with that). Since there was no social media when the murder took place, you only have his confession video recorded today.

Even with him confessing that he murdered someone that long ago: should he still serve time in prison despite him now being a gray haired old man who looks like he could be your grandfather? Knowing that he'll pass away soon enough, is it even worth a prison sentence?